[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 134 (Tuesday, July 14, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41019-41029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17087]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Bonneville Power Administration


Record of Decision; Electrical Interconnection of the Whistling 
Ridge Energy Project

AGENCY: Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Department of Energy 
(DOE).

ACTION: Record of Decision (ROD).

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

SUMMARY: The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) has decided to 
implement its part of the Proposed Action identified in the Whistling 
Ridge Energy Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (DOE/
EIS-0419, August 2011). Under the Proposed Action, BPA will offer 
Whistling Ridge Energy LLC (WRE) contract terms for interconnection of 
WRE's planned Whistling Ridge Energy Project (Wind Project) with the 
FCRTS. WRE's Wind Project will be an up to 75-megawatt (MW) wind energy 
facility located in Skamania County, Washington. WRE has received 
approval to construct and operate the Wind Project from the Governor of 
the State of Washington, based on the recommendation of the Washington 
Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC), which is the siting 
authority for the Wind Project.
    To allow the interconnection of WRE's Wind Project to the FCRTS, 
BPA will construct and operate a new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation and 
associated facilities that will connect the Wind Project to BPA's 
existing North Bonneville-Midway 230-kV transmission line, which passes 
through the southern portion of the Wind Project site.\1\ These 
interconnection facilities will be located entirely within the 
boundaries of the Wind Project site. BPA also will execute a Large 
Generation Interconnection Agreement (LGIA) with WRE to provide 
interconnection services for the Wind Project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This Record of Decision generally uses the term ``Wind 
Project'' to refer to all aspects of WRE's proposal except for the 
BPA interconnection facilities, and uses the term ``Project'' in 
referring to both the Wind Project and the BPA interconnection 
facilities. In this Record of Decision, ``Interconnection 
facilities'' may include any network upgrades or transmission 
provider interconnection facilities that are necessary to support 
the interconnection of the Wind Project.

ADDRESSES: This Record of Decision will be available to all interested 
parties and affected persons and agencies and is being sent to all 
stakeholders who requested a copy. Copies of the Whistling Ridge Energy 
Project Draft and Final EISs, the Supplement Analysis that has been 
prepared, and additional copies of this document can be obtained from 
BPA's Public Information Center, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon, 
97208-3621. Copies of these documents may also be obtained by calling 
BPA's nationwide toll-free request line at 1-800-622-4520, or by 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
accessing BPA's Project Web site at www.bpa.gov/go/whistling.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Gardner, Transmission Project 
Manager, Bonneville Power Administration--TEP-TPP-1, P.O. Box 61409, 
Vancouver, WA 98666-1409; toll-free telephone number 1-800-622-4519; or 
email [email protected] or Katey Grange, Environmental Protection 
Specialist, Bonneville Power Administration--KEC-4, P.O. Box 3621, 
Portland, Oregon, 97208-3621; toll-free telephone number 1-800-622-
4519; or email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

BPA and FCRTS Interconnection Requests

    BPA is a federal agency that owns and operates the majority of the 
high-voltage electric transmission system in the Pacific Northwest. 
This system is known as the FCRTS. BPA has adopted an Open Access 
Transmission Tariff (tariff) for transmission and interconnection 
services on the FCRTS, generally consistent with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission's (FERC) pro forma open access tariff.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Although BPA is not subject to FERC's jurisdiction, BPA 
follows the open access tariff as a matter of national policy. This 
course of action ensures that BPA will receive reciprocal and non-
discriminatory access to the transmission systems of utilities that 
are subject to FERC's jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BPA's tariff establishes processes for accepting requests to 
interconnect to the FCRTS, conducting interconnection studies and 
environmental reviews for these requests, and offering LGIAs on a 
first-come, first served basis in response to the requests. For all 
requests for interconnection of generating facilities that exceed 20 
MW, BPA has adopted processes that are generally consistent with FERC's 
Order No. 2003, Standardization of Large Generator Interconnection 
Agreement and Procedures, and Order No. 661, Interconnection for Wind 
Energy. Orders No. 2003 and 661 provide a uniform process and agreement 
for studying and offering interconnection to wind generating facilities 
exceeding 20 MW. In its Order No. 2003 compliance filing, BPA included 
provisions in its Large Generator Interconnection Procedures (LGIP) 
that reflect BPA's obligation to complete environmental

[[Page 41020]]

review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of a proposed 
large generation interconnection before deciding whether to offer a 
LGIA to the party requesting interconnection.
    Although BPA accepts requests for interconnection of proposed and 
existing generating facilities to the FCRTS, BPA does not have siting 
authority or regulatory jurisdiction over these facilities. That is the 
purview of appropriate state and local entities, and BPA acknowledges 
and respects the authority and jurisdiction of these entities on 
generation facility siting matters.

WRE's Application and EIS Process

    In 2009, WRE \3\ submitted an Application for Site Certification to 
Washington EFSEC to construct and operate the Whistling Ridge Energy 
Project in Skamania County, Washington. EFSEC is a Washington state 
agency that was created to provide a ``one-stop'' state licensing 
agency for certain energy facilities in Washington. As such, EFSEC has 
siting authority over these energy facilities, and parties proposing to 
construct and operate any such facility must apply to EFSEC for siting 
review. In addition, energy facilities that exclusively use alternative 
energy resources (such as wind, solar, geothermal, landfill gas, wave 
or tidal action, or biomass energy) can ``opt-in'' to the EFSEC review 
and certification process. In the case of the Wind Project, WRE elected 
to opt in to the EFSEC process through submittal of its application.\4\ 
WRE's application identified a proposed wind energy facility consisting 
of up to 50 wind turbines that could each range in size from 1.2 to 2.5 
MW, with a total installed capacity of up to approximately 75 MW. The 
proposal also included an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) facility, an 
electrical collector substation, underground collector lines and 
systems, and other ancillary facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ WRE is a limited liability company created by SDS Lumber 
Company.
    \4\ More information about Washington EFSEC's siting review 
process for the Whistling Ridge Energy Project is available at the 
EFSEC Web site at: http://www.efsec.wa.gov/whistling%20ridge.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to applying to EFSEC for siting of its Wind Project, 
WRE submitted a request to BPA to interconnect the Wind Project to the 
FCRTS. BPA processed the request under its LGIP, including conducting 
interconnection studies and environmental review of the proposed 
interconnection.
    To meet respective obligations under the State Environmental Policy 
Act (SEPA) and NEPA, Washington EFSEC and BPA decided to conduct a 
joint environmental review and prepare a joint EIS under SEPA and NEPA 
for the Wind Project and proposed interconnection. BPA formally 
initiated the NEPA EIS process by publishing a Notice of Intent to 
prepare an EIS in the Federal Register (74 FR 18213) in April 2009. The 
Notice of Intent described the proposal and the respective roles of 
Washington EFSEC and BPA, and explained the environmental process and 
how to submit scoping comments for the Draft EIS. At the same time, BPA 
also sent a letter that also provided this information to approximately 
250 individuals. During the EIS scoping period, BPA and EFSEC jointly 
conducted two public informational and EIS scoping meetings in 
Stevenson, Washington, and Underwood, Washington. BPA also established 
a Web site (www.bpa.gov/go/whistling) with information about the 
project and the EIS process. Comments received during scoping are 
described in more detail in Chapter 1 of the Final EIS and in the EIS 
Scoping Report (August 2009) prepared by EFSEC in consultation with 
BPA.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The EIS Scoping Report is available at the Washington EFSEC 
Web site at: http://www.efsec.wa.gov/Whistling%20Ridge/SEPA/WR%20Environmental.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In May 2010, BPA and EFSEC issued the Draft EIS for public review 
and comment. In addition to distributing the Draft EIS to individuals, 
organizations, and agencies who had previously requested it, BPA posted 
the Draft EIS at the BPA project Web site and sent letters announcing 
its availability to potentially interested parties. A Notice of 
Availability of the Draft EIS also was published in the Federal 
Register (75 FR 30023) on May 28, 2010. BPA and EFSEC initially 
established a 45-day review and comment period for the Draft EIS, but 
later extended the comment period for an additional 39 days (for a 
total 84-day Draft EIS comment period) based on public requests. During 
the Draft EIS comment period, BPA and EFSEC held two public meetings in 
Stevenson and Underwood, Washington to help explain the Draft EIS and 
to accept public comments.
    BPA and EFSEC received a total of 608 comment letters on the Draft 
EIS. From these letters and the two Draft EIS public meetings, BPA and 
EFSEC identified approximately 2,100 individual comments. After careful 
consideration of all of these comments, BPA and EFSEC issued the Final 
EIS for the Project in August 2011. The Final EIS responded to all 
comments received on the Draft EIS and made necessary corrections and 
revisions to the EIS text. As with the Draft EIS, BPA distributed the 
Final EIS to individuals, organizations, and agencies who had 
previously requested it, posted it at the BPA project Web site, and 
sent out letters announcing its availability to potentially interested 
parties. A Notice of Availability of the Final EIS also was published 
in the Federal Register (76 FR 54767) on September 2, 2011.

EFSEC's Adjudicative Proceeding

    Concurrent with preparation of the EIS for the Project, EFSEC also 
held an adjudicative proceeding for WRE's application under Chapter 
34.05 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) as part of its siting 
review process for the Wind Project. EFSEC's adjudicatory proceedings 
are a formal hearing process similar to a courtroom proceeding, in 
which the applicant and opponents are allowed the opportunity to 
present information to support their cases concerning the applicant's 
proposed project.
    As an initial step, EFSEC held a land use hearing for the Wind 
Project in May 2009. This hearing was held to determine whether the 
Wind Project was consistent with applicable local and regional land use 
plans and zoning ordinances. In addition to taking evidence at this 
hearing, 16 witnesses testified at the hearing concerning the Wind 
Project. EFSEC also received almost 400 comment letters and evidentiary 
submissions regarding land use consistency.
    EFSEC then conducted its adjudicative proceeding for the Wind 
Project. After issuing a notice of intent to hold the proceeding, 
several prehearing conferences were held between July 2009 and December 
2010. The formal adjudicative hearing was then held over several days 
in January 2011. In addition to receiving testimony from 17 parties and 
65 witnesses on the adjudication hearing record, EFSEC also received 
almost 400 written submissions regarding the adjudication.
    In October 2011, Washington EFSEC issued its Final Adjudicative 
Order for the Wind Project that presented its conclusions and findings 
concerning both the land use hearing and the adjudicative 
proceeding.\6\ Regarding land use consistency, EFSEC noted that the 
Wind Project site is located in an

[[Page 41021]]

area within Skamania County that is designated as ``Conservancy'' by 
the County's Comprehensive Plan and that is unmapped under the County's 
Zoning Ordinance. After considering several factors, EFSEC determined 
that the Wind Project is consistent with the Conservancy designation in 
the Comprehensive Plan, and that the Wind Project is compliant with 
current zoning in the unmapped zone because wind generation has not 
been found to be a nuisance by a court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ EFSEC's Final Adjudicative Order for the Wind Project is 
available at: http://www.efsec.wa.gov/Whistling%20Ridge/Adjudication/Orders/WR%20Adj%20Order%20868%2010-7-2011.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the adjudicative proceeding, EFSEC found that need 
existed for the Wind Project, especially considering RCW 80.50.010's 
recognition of the ``pressing need for increased energy facilities'' 
and legislation that required sustainable energy to account for 15 
percent of the State's energy supply by 2020. See RCW 19.285.010. EFSEC 
then turned to the issue of whether the Wind Project would create a net 
benefit after considering its impacts. EFSEC found that the ``most 
hotly contested'' impact was on the aesthetic and cultural heritage of 
the area, largely due to the visibility of some of the Wind Project's 
proposed wind turbines from the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic 
Area (Scenic Area) as well as other portions of the Columbia River 
Gorge. EFSEC noted that while the Wind Project is not the first 
development to occur in the area, as transmission lines, hydroelectric 
dams, highways, rail lines, and industrial, commercial, and residential 
development already exist, it nonetheless desires to preserve the views 
within the Columbia River Gorge as much as possible. EFSEC also noted 
that while most of the Wind Project's turbines would be only partially 
visible from only a few viewing locations, two ``strings'' of 
turbines--string A-1 through A-7 and string C-1 through C-8--would be 
prominently visible from certain locations within the Columbia River 
Gorge. Based on these concerns, EFSEC concluded that these two turbine 
strings should not be approved.
    EFSEC's Final Adjudicative Order also addressed concerns regarding 
the Wind Project's impact on wildlife and wildlife habitat. It 
recognized that although there was significant wildlife habitat in the 
general area, the Project site is a managed commercial/industrial 
timber operation and is not pristine natural land. The Washington 
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) acknowledged that with 
appropriate mitigation measures, the Project would comply with its 
guidelines. After considering various arguments and evidence, EFSEC 
determined that with appropriate mitigation measures and monitoring, 
the project should go forward. Finally, the Final Adjudicative Order 
addressed several other issues with the Wind Project, such as noise 
issues, geological challenges, access road issues, cultural and 
archeological concerns, health and safety planning, and site 
restoration planning. Based on its evaluation and balancing of all of 
these considerations, EFSEC concluded that the Wind Project should be 
approved as proposed with the exception of turbine strings A-1 through 
A-7 and C-1 through C-8, which should be denied.

EFSEC's Recommendation and the Governor's Approval

    In January 2012, Washington EFSEC transmitted its Recommendation 
Order for the Wind Project and associated relevant materials to the 
Washington State Governor.\7\ Consistent with the Final Adjudicative 
Order, the Recommendation Order recommended that the Governor approve 
all aspects of the Wind Project except for turbine strings A-1 through 
A-7 and C-1 through C-8, which it recommended denying. The 
Recommendation Order also identified suggested conditions to be imposed 
if the Governor were to approve the Wind Project. A draft Site 
Certificate Agreement (SCA) was provided with the Recommendation Order 
that limited the total maximum number of allowed Wind Project turbines 
to up to 35 turbines (thereby reflecting the denial of turbine strings 
A-1 through A-7 and C-1 through C-8) and that included the suggested 
conditions of approval. However, neither the Recommendation Order nor 
the draft SCA limited the total installed capacity (up to 75 MW) of the 
Wind Project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Recommendation Order (EFSEC Order No. 869) and 
associated recommendation materials are available at the EFSEC Web 
site at: http://www.efsec.wa.gov/whistling%20ridge.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In March 2012, the Governor of Washington approved the Whistling 
Ridge Energy Project as recommended by EFSEC in its Recommendation 
Order. The Governor also executed the Final SCA at that time. In her 
approval letter to EFSEC, the Governor explained her agreement with 
EFSEC concerning the denial of the two turbine strings that would be 
prominently visible from certain locations within the Columbia River 
Gorge and the balancing of visual impacts with the public interest in 
approving sites for alternative energy facilities. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Final SCA and the Governor's approval letter are also 
available at: http://www.efsec.wa.gov/whistling%20ridge.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legal Challenge to the Governor's Approval

    In April 2012, two environmental groups--Friends of the Columbia 
Gorge and Save Our Scenic Area (collectively Friends)--filed a petition 
in Washington state court for judicial review of the Governor's 
approval and execution of the SCA for the Whistling Ridge Energy 
Project. Friends had participated in EFSEC's adjudicatory proceedings 
and had submitted comments during the EIS process for the Wind Project. 
During both processes, Friends raised various concerns about the Wind 
Project and urged that approval of the Project be denied.
    In its petition for judicial review, Friends primarily challenged 
the SCA and whether it, and the process leading up to it, complied with 
various statutory and regulatory requirements. Friends sought 
invalidation of the SCA and remand to EFSEC for further study and 
evaluation of the Wind Project. As provided for under RCW 80.50.140, 
Friends' petition was certified for review directly to the Washington 
Supreme Court.
    In August 2013, the Washington Supreme Court issued its opinion in 
the Friends' legal challenge to the Wind Project.\9\ After reviewing 
all of Friend's legal claims, the Court found no basis to reverse 
EFSEC's recommendation or the Governor's approval of the Wind Project. 
The Court first found that WRE's Application for Site Certification 
satisfied the requirements of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 
regarding application procedures, more particularly in the areas of 
assessing nighttime avian collisions, considering wind power guidelines 
issued by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and 
identifying proposed mitigation measures. Next, the Court found that 
EFSEC had complied with the WAC's fish and wildlife requirements. More 
specifically, the Court found that EFSEC had not violated the WAC's 
``no net loss'' requirement for wildlife habitat and had properly 
considered the results of wildlife surveys in determining that WAC 
requirements were met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Washington Supreme Court's opinion is available at: 
http://www.efsec.wa.gov/Whistling%20Ridge/Appeal/88089-1%20opinion.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Court then proceeded to reject Friends' remaining claims by 
finding no fault in how EFSEC had addressed a proposed mitigation 
parcel; mitigated for aesthetic, heritage, and recreational impacts; 
made a determination of consistency with Skamania County's zoning code; 
resolved Washington State

[[Page 41022]]

Forest Practices Act compliance requirements; or treated Forest 
Practices Act compliance requirements in the SCA.
    As a result, the Washington Supreme Court affirmed EFSEC's 
recommendation and the Governor's approval of the Wind Project.

Alternatives Considered

    The Final EIS prepared jointly by Washington EFSEC and BPA 
considered in detail the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. 
The Final EIS also discussed other alternatives that were considered 
but eliminated from detailed study in the EIS. The following summarizes 
the alternatives that were considered in detail in the EIS.

Proposed Action

    The Proposed Action involves the State of Washington's approval of 
WRE's Wind Project and BPA's grant of an interconnection of the Wind 
Project to the FCRTS. Under the Proposed Action, the Wind Project 
facilities and the BPA interconnection facilities will be constructed 
and operated within an approximately 1,150-acre site about 7 miles 
northwest of the City of White Salmon in Skamania County, Washington. 
This site is private commercial forestland in an unincorporated area of 
Skamania County, outside of the Scenic Area. Although the Wind Project 
site is relatively large, only a small portion of the site will 
actually be developed with Project facilities. About 56 acres would be 
permanently developed with these facilities, and another approximately 
52 acres would be subject to temporary disturbance primarily from 
construction activities.\10\ As a longstanding commercial forestry 
site, no old growth forests exist in areas where the Project will be 
developed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The acreages described in this section represent the 
maximum amounts identified in the Whistling Ridge Energy Project 
Final EIS; actual acreages for the Project as approved by the State 
of Washington will be less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Wind Project will have a total installed capacity of up to 75 
MW and includes wind turbines, an electrical collector system, other 
components, and access roads as described below. The BPA 
interconnection facilities, including a substation and transmission 
lines, that will be constructed to interconnect the Wind Project are 
also described below.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A more detailed discussion of the Proposed Action and the 
components of the Project is contained in Chapter 2 of the Whistling 
Ridge Energy Project Final EIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wind Turbines
    Up to 35 wind turbines, each ranging from 1.2 to 2.5 MW in 
generating capacity, will be installed in ``strings'' generally along 
ridgelines within the Project site.
    Turbine towers will be approximately 221 to 265 feet tall at 
turbine hub height, and up to 426 feet tall including blades. The 
turbines will all be the same model, although height may vary in 
response to terrain. The turbine towers will be tapered, hollow tubular 
structures, approximately 14 feet in diameter at the base and mounted 
on a concrete foundation with a diameter up to approximately 60 feet. 
The towers will likely be painted a flat neutral gray or white color. 
Some of the towers will be furnished with blinking lights visible to 
aircraft.
    In each turbine string, individual turbines will be spaced 
approximately 350 to 800 feet from the next (or approximately 1.5 to 
2.5 times the diameter of the turbine rotor). Specific turbine strings 
have been identified and approved by the State of Washington through 
its siting process for the Wind Project. The precise location of each 
turbine within these limited areas will be determined during EFSEC's 
``micro-siting'' process, which is the final technical and engineering 
process by which WRE will provide EFSEC with the final exact location 
for each turbine.
    The wind turbines will operate at wind speeds from 9 to 56 miles 
per hour, with a rotor speed range of 10 to 20 rotations per minute. 
The turbines operate on a variable pitch principal in which the rotor 
blades rotate to keep them at the optimum angle to maximize output for 
all wind speeds. At speeds exceeding 56 mph, the blades feather on 
their axis and the rotor stops turning. Each turbine is equipped with a 
wind vane that signals wind direction changes to the turbine's 
electronic controller. The electronic controller operates electric 
motors (the yaw mechanism), which turn the nacelle and rotor so that 
each turbine faces into the wind.
    As described earlier in this Record of Decision, WRE originally had 
proposed developing up to 50 wind turbines at the Wind Project site. 
Accordingly, in order to provide an analysis of the maximum potential 
development, a maximum 50-turbine wind project was what was described 
and evaluated in the EIS for the Wind Project. The State of 
Washington's approval of the Wind Project, however, denied turbine 
strings A-1 through A-7 and C-1 through C-8, thereby not approving 15 
turbine sites out of the original 50 potential sites originally 
proposed. By authorizing up to 35 turbines, the SCA reflects this 
denial of these two turbine strings. In all other respects, including 
the maximum total installed capacity (up to 75 MW), the Wind Project 
remains the same as described and evaluated in the EIS.
    Because the State of Washington's decision to deny turbine strings 
A-1 through A-7 and C-1 through C-8 occurred after the Final EIS had 
issued, BPA prepared a Supplement Analysis pursuant to its NEPA 
Regulations to review whether the resulting authorized turbine 
limitation constituted a ``substantial change'' in the Proposed Action 
within the meaning of NEPA.\12\ In the Supplement Analysis, BPA 
determined that the denial of these turbines was not such a change. The 
Supplement Analysis that BPA has prepared is available at www.bpa.gov/ 
go/ whistling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ U.S. Department of Energy NEPA Regulations, which are 
applicable to BPA, allow for the preparation of a Supplement 
Analysis to determine whether a new or supplemental EIS is required 
for changes to a proposed action covered in an existing EIS, or 
whether no further NEPA documentation is required. See 10 CFR 
1021.314.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Electrical Collector System
    In addition to wind turbines, the Wind Project includes an 
electrical collector system to collect and deliver the energy generated 
at Project turbines to the Project's collector substation. Each turbine 
will generate energy at approximately 575 volts (V). A 575 V to 34.5-kV 
transformer will be installed at each turbine, either on a transformer 
pad adjacent to the turbine or enclosed in the turbine's nacelle, 
depending on the turbine model. From there, the collected energy will 
be transmitted to the collector substation via underground 34.5-kV 
electric cables. Approximately 8.5 miles of underground collector 
cables will be installed. In areas where environmental constraints, 
geologic features, or cultural features necessitate, minor above ground 
placement of collector cables may occur.
    All of the underground 34.5-kV electric cables will connect to the 
Wind Project's collector substation located in the southern portion of 
the Wind Project site immediately adjacent to the new BPA 
interconnection substation. The collector substation will include 
voltage transformers (non-polychlorinated biphenyl oil-filled types) to 
transform the collected Project energy from 34.5-kV to 230-kV so that 
it is suitable for delivery to the FCRTS at the new BPA substation. The 
collector substation will be a graveled, fenced area that would include 
the voltage transformers, switching equipment, other electrical

[[Page 41023]]

equipment, and a parking area. A 50-foot cleared area will be 
maintained around this substation.
Other Wind Project Components
    To support the Wind Project, an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) 
facility will be constructed. The O&M facility will be located on an 
approximately 5-acre area either adjacent to the Wind Project's 
collector substation or about one-half mile west of the Wind Project 
site along West Pit Road. This 5-acre area will be fenced and have a 
locked gate. The O&M facility will be constructed of sheet metal and be 
approximately 16 feet tall to the roof peak. The facility will have 
approximately 3,000 square feet of enclosed space, including office and 
workshop areas, a kitchen, bathroom, shower, and utility sink. Water 
for the facility will come from a new on-site well; anticipated water 
use at this facility is expected to be less than 5,000 gallons per day. 
Water used by the facility will drain into an on-site septic system. A 
graveled parking area for employees, visitors, and equipment will be 
located adjacent to the O&M facility.
    In addition, a meteorological tower will be installed to collect 
and monitor wind speed and direction information as well as 
temperature, relative humidity and barometric pressure. The location 
for this tower will be determined during EFSEC's micro-siting process, 
based on a meteorologist's recommendations for an on-site location that 
best represents the Wind Project site's meteorological conditions. 
Meteorological towers are typically un-guyed lattice towers with either 
three or four corners that taper in size up to the tower's top. These 
towers are constructed so that the top of the tower--and the 
meteorological monitoring equipment installed there--is at the same 
approximate height as the hub of nearby wind turbines (i.e., in the 
case of the Wind Project, approximately 221 to 262 feet high).
Access Roads
    Much of the Wind Project site is accessible through an already 
existing network of logging roads at the site. Approximately 7.9 miles 
of existing logging roads at the site will be improved to allow use by 
Project construction vehicles. These improvements generally will 
involve road widening and providing a gravel all-weather surface. These 
roads currently are generally 8 to 12 feet wide, although some are as 
wide as 20 feet. Most of these roads will be widened to approximately 
25 feet (width of finished road), with an additional 5 feet of shoulder 
on either side.
    In portions of the Wind Project site where there are no existing 
logging roads, approximately 2.4 miles of new permanent access roads 
will be constructed. To construct these roads, a gravel surface will be 
installed, compacted to meet all equipment load requirements, and 
maintained to reduce wind erosion and dust. In addition, some temporary 
access may be required at some locations. Generally, equipment will be 
driven across open ground to access these locations, and some minor 
grading may be required to allow safe access. Any temporary access 
routes will be re-graded and reseeded as necessary to restore 
vegetation after construction is completed.
    Off of the Wind Project site, access to the site will occur from SR 
14 and County roads (Cook-Underwood Road to Willard Road) and then via 
a new connection to West Pit Road which connects to the Wind Project 
site. Approximately 2.5 miles of roadway improvements will occur on 
West Pit Road, which currently varies in width between 20 and 26 feet. 
To create a drivable surface of 25 feet with 5 feet of clearing on each 
side, portions of the roadway and some corners will be widened. In 
addition, an existing culvert that runs along a portion of this road 
may need some additional lengthening if the roadway is widened over the 
culvert.
BPA Interconnection Facilities
    BPA will construct a new substation (currently referred to as the 
Little Buck Substation) to interconnect the Wind Project to the FCRTS. 
The new BPA substation will be located adjacent to the Wind Project's 
collector substation in the southern portion of the Wind Project site, 
near the southernmost BPA transmission line corridor that passes 
through the site. BPA's existing Underwood Tap to Bonneville Powerhouse 
1-North Camas 115-kV transmission line runs along the northern side of 
this corridor, while BPA's existing North Bonneville-Midway 230-kV 
transmission line runs along the southern side of the corridor.
    Overhead lines will connect the Wind Project's collector substation 
to the BPA substation. The BPA substation will occupy an area of 
approximately 430 feet by 430 feet or approximately 4.25 acres. This 
area will be fenced, graded and rocked. Inside the fence, there will be 
a control house, six 230-kV disconnect switches, three 230-kV power 
circuit breakers, steel structures and towers, insulators and bus work. 
The graveled access roads described above will provide access to the 
BPA substation.
    From the BPA substation, two new overhead 230-kV transmission lines 
will extend south for about 1,000 feet to the interconnection point on 
BPA's North Bonneville-Midway transmission line. These overhead lines 
will serve to ``loop in'' the new BPA substation to the North 
Bonneville-Midway transmission line. Ten transmission structures will 
be installed to provide this loop-in. Two of these structures will be 
installed along the North Bonneville-Midway transmission line to create 
a ``break'' in this line for the loop-in. One of these structures will 
direct the line north to the new substation and the other will connect 
it back into the existing alignment. Both structures will be steel 
lattice dead-end towers that will be installed entirely within the 
existing transmission line right-of-way. Due to topography, one of 
these structures will be 50 feet tall and the other will be 85 feet 
tall.
    The other eight transmission structures will be wood pole 
structures installed in between the BPA substation and the 
interconnection point to support the two new overhead lines. Each of 
the two lines will have four structures installed. For each line, the 
structure closest to the BPA substation will be a three-pole H-frame 
structure as will the structure closest to the interconnection point. 
The remaining two structures for each line will be two-pole H-frame 
structures. The eight structures will be installed in a previously 
disturbed corridor running from the BPA substation to the 
interconnection point. The heights of the eight structures will range 
from 50 to 80 feet, depending on terrain.
    In addition, because the loop-in will need to cross underneath the 
Underwood Tap to Bonneville Powerhouse 1-North Camas transmission line 
to reach the North Bonneville-Midway transmission line, a new steel 
lattice structure will be installed along the Underwood Tap to 
Bonneville Powerhouse 1-North Camas transmission line to raise its 
conductors such that the loop-in can safely cross underneath. This 
tower will be approximately 80 feet tall and installed entirely within 
the existing transmission line right-of-way. This tower and all other 
BPA interconnection facilities will be located outside of the Scenic 
Area.

No Action Alternative

    The No Action Alternative described in the Final EIS involved the 
State of Washington denying WRE's Application for Site Certification 
for the Wind Project and/or BPA not granting

[[Page 41024]]

interconnection of the Project to the FCRTS. As a result, the Project 
and its various components would not be constructed or operated under 
the No Action Alternative, and the environmental effects associated 
with Project construction and operation would not occur.\13\ 
Accordingly, under this alternative, the Wind Project's output would 
not be available to utilities seeking renewable energy resources in 
order to meet state renewable energy goals, or to meet the region's 
potential need for additional power in coming years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ At this point in time, the conclusion that the Wind Project 
would not be constructed and operated if BPA were to deny 
interconnection may no longer be true, given that the State of 
Washington has approved the Wind Project and granted a SCA to WRE. 
This state approval allows WRE to build its Wind Project regardless 
of BPA's action on the interconnection request. Thus, it is 
conceivable that even if BPA denied interconnection, WRE could still 
build its Wind Project and seek interconnection of the Wind Project 
to the transmission lines of another transmission provider, such as 
Klickitat or Skamania PUD. Nonetheless, for the purposes of this 
Record of Decision and the NEPA analysis, BPA continues to presume 
that the Wind Project would not be constructed and operated under 
the No Action Alternative, as is stated in the Final EIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Project would not be constructed or operated under the No 
Action Alternative, activities with environmental effects would still 
continue to occur on the Wind Project site. This site has been in 
commercial forestry use for the last century, during which the site has 
been logged over a series of approximately 50-year logging rotations. 
It is reasonable to expect that SDS Lumber and others will continue to 
use the site for commercial forestry production--which would include 
regular tree clearing, harvesting, replanting, and development of 
additional logging roads as necessary--for the foreseeable future if 
the Project is not built.
    On balance and overall, however, the development of a wind 
generation facility at the Project site likely will result in greater 
local environmental impacts than would occur from continued periodic 
commercial forestry production under the No Action Alternative. The No 
Action Alternative thus is the environmentally preferable alternative.

Public Comments Received Since Issuance of the Final EIS

    Following issuance of the Final EIS, BPA received comments 
concerning the Project and EIS from various parties. These comments can 
be viewed on-line at: www.bpa.gov/go/whistling. BPA has reviewed and 
considered all of these comments in making its decision about 
interconnecting the Project to the FCRTS.
    Although NEPA does not require written responses to comments 
received on a Final EIS, this section of the Record of Decision 
summarizes and addresses the comments about the Project and EIS that 
BPA received after issuing the Whistling Ridge Energy Project Final 
EIS. Some of the comments that BPA received identify post-Final EIS 
developments that the commenter believes warrant preparation of a 
supplemental EIS. These post-Final EIS developments include the State 
of Washington's decision to deny turbine strings A-1 through A-7 and C-
1 through C-8, as well as additional environmental information 
potentially relevant to the Wind Project. As previously indicated in 
this Record of Decision, BPA has prepared a Supplement Analysis to 
address the state's denial of certain turbine strings; this Supplement 
Analysis also addresses additional environmental information 
potentially relevant to the Wind Project that has been raised by 
commenters, as well as other additional information and circumstances 
that BPA has become aware of. For comments that identified post-Final 
EIS developments, a summary response to each of these comments is 
provided here, with a more detailed consideration and evaluation of the 
post-Final EIS developments and whether or not they warrant preparation 
of a supplemental EIS contained in the Supplement Analysis that BPA has 
prepared. As previously indicated, the Supplement Analysis is available 
at www.bpa.gov/go/whistling.
    Comments were received from the following parties after the release 
of the Final EIS:

     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
     Skamania County Noxious Weed Control Board
     Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation (Yakama 
Nation)
     Seattle Audubon
     Friends of the Columbia Gorge (Friends)

    \EPA's letter stated that the Final EIS was responsive to and 
addressed the comments that they had submitted on the Draft EIS. The 
EPA expressed appreciation for additional clarifying environmental 
resource information provided in the Final EIS, other EIS changes in 
response to public comments, and BPA's commitment to continue to work 
with Tribes, state agencies, and other Federal agencies. BPA 
appreciates the EPA's feedback in these areas.
    The Skamania County Noxious Weed Control Board sent an email to BPA 
that provided updated contact information and a corrected Web site 
link. BPA has revised its contact list for the Project to include the 
updated contact information, and acknowledges that the correct Board 
Web site link is http://www.skamaniacounty.org/noxious-weeds/.
    The Yakama Nation's letter raised three main issues. BPA responded 
to these issues in an October 2011 letter to the Yakama Nation; the 
following summarizes the issues raised and BPA's responses. First, the 
Yakama Nation raised concerns about potential impacts to an 
archaeological object found in May 2011 on Chemawa Hill within the Wind 
Project site that was not identified in the Final EIS. Although not 
specifically identified in the Final EIS, the Final EIS addressed the 
cultural significance of Chemawa Hill and BPA acknowledges and respects 
that cultural significance. Additionally, the State of Washington's 
approval of the Wind Project did not approve the turbine strings that 
would have been located on Chemawa Hill, thereby eliminating the 
potential for impacts to any cultural resources at Chemawa Hill. 
Furthermore, WRE has committed to continued collaboration with the 
Yakama Nation regarding construction activities in potential culturally 
sensitive areas.
    Second, the Yakama Nation's letter reminded BPA of a tribal 
resolution specifying that only the Yakama Nation Cultural Resource 
Program is authorized to represent the Yakama Nation in discussions 
concerning placement of Wind Project turbines in culturally sensitive 
areas. BPA acknowledges and respects this tribal resolution. 
Accordingly, although BPA is not involved in the turbine siting, in 
carrying out its interconnection actions, BPA has and will continue to 
consult with the Yakama Nation Cultural Resource Program as the 
designated representative for the Tribe with respect to the Project.
    Third, the Yakama Nation's letter stated views on the scope of 
BPA's review under NEPA and the National Historic Preservation Act 
(NHPA) for the Project. While BPA respects the Yakama Nation's views, 
BPA believes the Final EIS properly identifies the scope of BPA's 
action for the Whistling Ridge Energy Project and that BPA has 
appropriately considered its action under NEPA and the NHPA, as well as 
its federal trust responsibilities. BPA also notes that it fully 
participated in the preparation of the joint NEPA/SEPA EIS that 
included analysis of the environmental impacts of the entire

[[Page 41025]]

Project. Accordingly, in making a decision to allow interconnection of 
the Wind Project to the FCRTS, BPA considered all of the environmental 
information about the Project that is contained in the Final EIS.
    The letter from the Seattle Audubon on behalf of itself and other 
groups requested that BPA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 
reinitiate Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act 
(ESA) for the Project. In its letter, Seattle Audubon stated that 
reinitiation of consultation was needed because conclusions made by the 
FWS in its July 2010 concurrence letter about the Project's effect on 
northern spotted owl (NSO) appeared to be based on inaccurate 
information, the FWS failed to evaluate key NSO information, and the 
FWS's June 2011 Revised Recovery Plan for the NSO needed to be 
evaluated.
    BPA responded in a November 2011 letter in which BPA explained the 
standards for reinitiating consultation and found that any 
misstatements or possible omissions were not substantial enough to 
justify reinitiation of consultation, and that it was unlikely that 
further consideration of any corrections or omissions would change the 
outcome of the FWS's final determination. In a December 2011 letter, 
the FWS also responded to Seattle Audubon by agreeing with BPA and 
concluding that, based on a review of the additional information 
provided by Seattle Audubon as well as the Revised Recovery Plan, they 
were not recommending reinitiation of Section 7 consultation for the 
Project. In February 2012, the FWS sent BPA a letter under Section 
7(a)(2) of the ESA to review and address potentially inaccurate 
information and possible omissions that had been identified. The FWS 
concluded its letter by reaffirming the determination made in its July 
2010 concurrence letter that the Project is not likely to adversely 
affect the NSO. Additional information concerning Section 7 
consultation and coordination activities for the Project after issuance 
of the Final EIS is provided in the Supplemental Analysis that has been 
prepared for the EIS.
    Finally, BPA received several letters from Friends after issuance 
of the Final EIS that raised a variety of issues about BPA's proposed 
interconnection of the Wind Project and the EIS. To begin with, Friends 
urged BPA to deny WRE's interconnection request because Friends 
believes WRE has not sufficiently defined the details of the Wind 
Project, as approved by the State of Washington, and thus has not 
satisfied the BPA's information requirements for interconnections. BPA 
notes that it considers the information it received from WRE as part of 
the initial interconnection request by WRE as sufficient and at an 
appropriate level of detail to assess the impacts of the 
interconnection and complete the study phase of the interconnection 
process. In addition, the decision by the State of Washington to not 
approve certain turbines strings did not materially alter the 
sufficiency of this information for the purposes of interconnection 
studies, given that the Wind Project's maximum total installed capacity 
did not change, and neither did the plan of service for interconnecting 
the Wind Project to the FCRTS. The information requirements cited by 
Friends describe typical information that BPA requires, to the extent 
that it is applicable and necessary, at various points in the 
interconnection process. Consistent with BPA's normal process, BPA will 
obtain the more detailed technical information about Wind Project 
components relevant to its interconnection requirements as it refines 
the technical design for the BPA interconnection facilities, but it is 
fully expected that these refinements will not alter the basic plan of 
service that has already been developed. Accordingly, BPA has 
sufficient certainty about the Wind Project and its details to grant 
WRE's interconnection request.
    Friends also urged BPA to not act on WRE's interconnection request 
until BPA updates a 2008 system impact study with Wind Project details 
and changes in system conditions since the study was completed. To 
clarify, BPA performed the 2008 system impact study in response to 
requests for transmission service, not a request for interconnection. 
Transmission service requests are handled separately and independently 
from interconnection requests such as the one being granted as a result 
of this ROD. Moreover, the 2008 system impact study was performed for 
transmission service requests that were effectively withdrawn from 
consideration soon after the 2008 study was completed. When WRE submits 
a transmission service request, BPA will conduct a new system impact 
study specific to whatever that request entails. The results of that 
study are not necessary for making a decision concerning the requested 
interconnection, and BPA believes it has a sufficient understanding at 
this time of potential system impacts from interconnecting the Wind 
Project. In addition, in recent years BPA has built new transmission 
facilities and made other infrastructure improvements that have helped 
address previously identified transmission constraints in this portion 
of BPA's transmission system.
    Friends also believes that BPA should not act on WRE's 
interconnection request until WRE signs the Final SCA for the Wind 
Project that the Washington Governor has already signed, to ensure 
acceptance of the Final SCA's term and conditions by WRE. BPA notes 
that WRE signed the Final SCA in November 2013. Accordingly, the terms 
and conditions in the Final SCA, including those that serve as 
environmental mitigation measures, are fully binding on WRE.
    A final grounds urged by Friends for denying WRE's interconnection 
request is that the Wind Project, as approved by the State of 
Washington, is not economically viable based on statements from WRE 
during the state's siting review process. BPA contacted WRE about this 
issue, and WRE recently provided BPA with a letter addressing it. In 
its letter, WRE affirms that the Wind Project continues to be an 
economically viable project for a variety of reasons. The letter points 
to Oregon and Washington state requirements for increasing use of 
renewable energy resources in utility portfolios in coming years, other 
state as well as federal proposals that likely would result in 
increased pressure to shift from fossil fuel energy sources to 
renewable energy, and the potential for increased demand from 
California for renewable energy. The letter notes that demand for 
renewables occurs in periodic waves, and these factors are expected to 
significantly increase renewable demand in coming years. WRE also 
attached a 2012 Declaration in Washington state court made by Jason 
Spadaro, President of WRE, that further elaborates on the reasons why 
the Wind Project is economically viable and affirms that WRE is 
committed to the Wind Project. This information from WRE sufficiently 
addresses the economic viability issue raised by Friends.
    Regarding the EIS for the Project, Friends asserted in its letters 
that BPA should prepare a supplemental EIS for a variety of reasons. To 
begin with, Friends stated a supplemental EIS is necessary to address 
the limitation on the maximum number of wind turbines resulting from 
the State of Washington's approval of the Wind Project. As previously 
discussed in this Record of Decision, BPA reviewed this limitation 
through the Supplement Analysis it has prepared. In the Supplement 
Analysis, BPA determined that the turbine limitation did not constitute 
a

[[Page 41026]]

``substantial change'' in the Proposed Action within the meaning of 
NEPA, and that preparation of a supplemental EIS therefore was not 
required.
    Another reason to supplement the EIS stated by Friends is that 
Friends believes the State of Washington's approval requires BPA to 
reexamine its need for action identified in the Final EIS, as well as 
the identified BPA purposes. As discussed in the EIS, BPA's need for 
action is a need to decide whether or not to grant the requested 
interconnection of the Wind Project to the FCRTS. This need has not 
changed. Furthermore, the identified BPA purposes remain the same for 
the state-approved Wind Project. These purposes are considered in 
detail below in the ``BPA's Rationale for Decision'' section of this 
Record of Decision.
    Another reason stated by Friends is that increases in regional wind 
energy since the Final EIS was completed have affected BPA's need for 
action identified in the Final EIS, as well as the identified BPA 
purposes. As with the State of Washington's decision to limit the 
maximum number of turbines, the increase in regional wind energy has 
not changed the BPA need for action or its identified purposes. 
Consideration of the purposes in light of increased regional wind 
energy is provided in the ``BPA's Rationale for Decision'' section of 
this Record of Decision.
    Another reason stated by Friends is that the summary in the Final 
EIS of the Applicant-identified needs for the Wind Project requires 
reevaluation for several reasons. To clarify, these Applicant-
identified needs are not BPA's need. Nonetheless, the description of 
regional renewable energy needs--and more importantly for BPA's 
decision, project transmission needs--remains reasonably accurate today 
and helps provide useful context for why WRE has proposed its Wind 
Project. This includes the description of the Northwest Power and 
Conservation Council's draft Sixth Northwest Power Plan (Power Plan), 
which was subsequently finalized. BPA has reviewed the final Power Plan 
and finds that portions of the draft Power Plan that are summarized in 
the Final EIS remained substantially similar in the final version of 
the Power Plan.
    Another reason stated by Friends is that BPA and EFSEC need to 
review several aspects of the Project under NEPA and SEPA that Friends 
believes are unresolved or undecided. Friends states that these aspects 
include technical details, mitigation measures, and construction and 
operational plans that are yet to be resolved and approved. Current 
information about the Project is sufficient to analyze its 
environmental impacts and meet the requirements of NEPA. If there is a 
change in the Project or its potential impacts at some point in the 
future as a result of further Project refinement, BPA would conduct 
appropriate additional NEPA review at that time depending on the nature 
and scope of any change.
    Another reason stated by Friends is that the Final EIS failed to 
adequately evaluate wildlife impacts in the areas of quantification of 
bird and bat mortality from blade strikes, evaluation of the relative 
abundance of sensitive-status species, inclusion of critical info on 
impacts to bats, and disclosure of mitigation measures for wildlife 
impacts. The Final EIS provides sufficient consideration and analyses 
of these areas to meet the requirements of NEPA.
    Another reason stated by Friends is that the EIS should address the 
FWS's June 2011 Revised Recovery Plan for the NSO. As discussed above, 
BPA and the FWS have determined that reinitiation of Section 7(2)(a) 
consultation is not needed as a result of the Revised Recovery Plan. In 
addition, BPA has reviewed the Revised Recovery Plan, and any 
additional information concerning NSO provided by the Plan does not 
alter the conclusions made in the final EIS about potential impacts to 
NSO. Correspondingly, no additional analysis concerning the Revised 
Recovery Plan is needed in the EIS.
    Another reason stated by Friends is that additional EIS analysis of 
impacts to bald and golden eagles is needed to comply with the FWS's 
``Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines'' issued in 2012 and ``Eagle 
Conservation Plan Guidance'' issued in 2013, both of which have been 
reviewed by BPA. The surveys that were conducted for the Wind Project 
generally comport with the FWS guidance in these documents and, 
regardless, are sufficient for the purposes of NEPA analysis. 
Furthermore, BPA notes that both of these documents are intended to be 
guidelines to be followed only voluntarily; in other words, they are 
not required or mandatory. Just as importantly, both of these FWS 
documents provide that projects for which planning is already underway 
should comply with the recommendations going forward rather than 
conducting restudies to apply the guidance retroactively. Accordingly, 
additional EIS restudy is not required to address these two guidance 
documents.
    Another reason stated by Friends is that EIS review is needed of a 
2012 report entitled ``Synthesis of Wind Energy Development and 
Potential Impacts on Wildlife in the Pacific Northwest, Oregon and 
Washington'' by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). BPA has 
reviewed this report, and the analysis of wildlife impacts contained in 
the Final EIS remains sufficient under NEPA in light of the report. In 
addition, additional information provided by the report does not alter 
the conclusions made in the Final EIS about potential wildlife impacts. 
Thus, preparation of a supplemental EIS on the basis of the USDA report 
is not necessary.
    Another reason stated by Friends is that the Final EIS fails to 
consider the effects of noise impacts on wildlife. BPA notes first that 
the Final EIS does consider disturbance of wildlife by Project 
construction, including through changes to the noise environment. In 
addition, BPA has reviewed information sources cited by Friends 
concerning potential operational noise impacts to wildlife and has 
determined that this information does not significantly alter the 
conclusions made in the Final EIS concerning potential operation 
impacts to wildlife. As discussed in the Supplement Analysis that has 
been prepared, the project's operational noise would occur in a 
landscape of managed timber land that is, and will continue to be, 
fragmented with ongoing disturbance. Any operational noise impacts to 
wildlife thus would fall within the bandwidth of overall degradation of 
wildlife habitat already discussed in the Final EIS.
    Another reason stated by Friends is that EIS review is needed of a 
bibliography of noise impacts to wildlife that was published by the 
National Park Service in 2011. BPA has reviewed the sources included in 
this bibliography that are relevant to wind projects and has determined 
that the source reports do not alter the conclusions made in the Final 
EIS about potential wildlife impacts.
    Another reason stated by Friends is that EIS review is needed to 
address recent studies on the effects of noise from operating wind 
turbines on human health and the human environment. BPA has reviewed 
these studies and determined that the analysis of potential impacts to 
human health from wind turbine noise that is contained in the Final EIS 
remains sufficient under NEPA. The studies cited by Friends largely are 
consistent with the discussion of potential noise impacts to humans 
from wind turbine operations that is contained in Section 3.7.2 of the 
EIS, and do not alter the conclusions made in the Final EIS about these 
impacts. BPA also notes EFSEC's findings that construction and 
operation

[[Page 41027]]

of the Wind Project will comply with all applicable noise regulations 
in the State of Washington. Accordingly, a supplemental EIS is not 
needed to address these studies.
    Another reason stated by Friends is that the EIS needs to address 
information from EFSEC's Final Adjudicative Order and Recommendation 
Order concerning the significance of impacts to scenic resources from 
the Wind Project. EFSEC provided a letter in December 2011 to Friends 
that largely addressed this issue. EFSEC's letter explained that EFSEC 
did not perform or use any new analysis or data for scenic impacts from 
what was considered in the Final EIS. EFSEC further explained that it 
simply duplicated the review process utilized in the EIS in making its 
determination concerning the significance of viewscape change for the 
Wind Project from various viewing sites. In so doing, EFSEC emphasized 
that it did not find any serious flaws in the Final EIS's analysis of 
scenic impacts, did not discredit any conclusions made in the EIS about 
these impacts, and found nothing that would violate state law. 
Accordingly, while EFSEC members may have developed their own opinion 
on scenic impacts, they did not alter or undermine the analysis of 
scenic impacts contained in the Final EIS. BPA concurs with EFSEC's 
response and believes that the Final EIS does not need to be 
supplemented on the basis of this issue.
    Another reason stated by Friends is that the EIS understates the 
Project's likely scenic impacts. First, as Friends notes, the Final EIS 
acknowledges the scenic impacts of the Project. While Friends may 
disagree about the degree of those impacts, the Final EIS provides a 
reasonable analysis of potential scenic impacts and draws reasonable 
conclusions about their significance. Second, the denial by the State 
of Washington of turbine strings A-1 through A-7 and C-1 through C-8 
served to substantially reduce the overall scenic impact of the Wind 
Project from various viewing points in the Columbia River Gorge, 
include those within the Scenic Area. The denial of these turbines thus 
further mitigated scenic impacts to ensure that potential levels of 
visual impacts would not be higher than low to moderate at any of the 
viewpoints examined. As a result, the conclusions in the FEIS 
concerning the level of potential visual impacts at various viewpoints 
remains relatively accurate, and the Final EIS does not need to be 
supplemented on the basis of this issue.
    Another reason stated by Friends is that the EIS needs to address 
the May 2011 discovery of an archaeological object on Chemawa Hill. As 
is discussed above, the Final EIS adequately addresses the cultural 
significance of Chemawa Hill and impacts to cultural resources at this 
location are being avoided.
    Another reason stated by Friends is that the cumulative impacts 
analysis in the Final EIS is outdated and inadequate, because 
additional wind energy resources and other development have been 
completed or are proposed within the cumulative impact study area since 
the Final EIS was issued. BPA's Supplement Analysis discusses this 
additional development and concludes that it either has no cumulative 
impacts beyond those already described in the Final EIS or has resulted 
in only negligible increases in cumulative impacts within the scope of 
those already discussed in the Final EIS. For these reasons, a 
supplemental EIS to further consider cumulative impacts is not 
necessary.
    In its letters, Friends also states that it believes BPA must 
obtain permits under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) 
and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) in order to approve the 
interconnection. As discussed in the Final EIS, the Wind Project would 
not involve intentional acts in wanton disregard of bald or golden 
eagles under the BGEPA and would not be expected to result in a take or 
killing of migratory bird species within the meaning of the MBTA. 
Moreover, the Final SCA between the State of Washington and WRE makes 
WRE responsible for completing a plan to comply with requirements of 
these statutes. It is BPA's understanding that if a permit is required 
for the Wind Project under either statute, that will be the 
responsibility of WRE, as the owner and operator of the Wind Project, 
to obtain. Accordingly, it is not necessary for BPA to seek permits 
under the BGEPA and MBTA under these circumstances.
    In addition, Friends asks BPA to consider evaluating recent 
information concerning an enforcement action under the MBTA related to 
wind projects in Wyoming and deaths of golden eagles at the Wild Horse 
Wind Project in central Washington State. BPA has reviewed available 
information concerning the Wyoming wind project enforcement action, 
including the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) press release regarding 
the enforcement. The Final EIS sufficiently addresses and analyzes the 
potential for impacts to migratory birds and eagles in a manner 
consistent with the recommendations of the FWS and DOJ concerning pre-
construction evaluations. In addition, as discussed in the Final EIS 
and pursuant to the Final SCA, pre-construction raptor nest surveys 
will be conducted during the nesting season immediately prior to 
beginning site preparation, and a Technical Advisory Committee of 
agency professionals and other bird experts will be convened to assist 
with developing measures to ensure that risks to migratory birds and 
eagles are minimized as much as possible. Furthermore, as discussed 
above, the Final SCA requires that a golden eagle and bald eagle plan 
be completed before the Wind Project begins operations. The Final SCA 
also requires that this plan be completed in consultation with the FWS 
and WDFW, which BPA expects will ensure that these agencies are in 
agreement with the approach being taken. Accordingly, the information 
concerning the Wyoming enforcement action does not significantly change 
the analysis or conclusions concerning migratory birds and eagles in 
the Final EIS.
    BPA also has reviewed available information concerning the golden 
eagle deaths at the Wild Horse Wind Project. The analysis of potential 
impacts to golden eagles completed for the Whistling Ridge Energy 
Project Final EIS remains sufficiently accurate even in light of this 
information. Furthermore, the consultation that will occur with the FWS 
for the golden eagle and bald eagle plan for the Wind Project will 
ensure that all impacts to golden eagles are appropriately considered 
and addressed. As part of that consultation, it is expected that WRE 
and the FWS will coordinate as necessary concerning whether an eagle 
take permit is needed for the Wind Project.
    Finally, Friends has provided BPA with a petition from citizens 
opposed to the Wind Project. On behalf of these citizens, Friends' 
letter transmitting the petition urges BPA to deny the requested 
interconnection for a variety of reasons, largely similar to those 
expressed in other letters from Friends and addressed above. BPA 
respects the viewpoints and opinions expressed in the petition and 
understands that there are some who are opposed to the Wind Project 
given its location. BPA has included consideration of the petition in 
making its decision (see ``BPA's Rationale for Decision'' section 
below).

BPA'S Rationale for Decision

    In making its decision to implement its part of the Proposed 
Action, BPA has considered and balanced a variety of relevant factors. 
BPA considered how

[[Page 41028]]

well each alternative under consideration--the Proposed Action 
alternative and the No Action alternative--would fit with BPA's 
statutory missions and relevant policies and procedures. BPA also 
considered the environmental impacts described in the Final EIS. In 
addition, BPA considered new environmental information and other 
circumstances, including the State of Washington's denial of certain 
turbine strings, addressed in the Supplement Analysis. BPA also 
considered public comments received throughout the NEPA process for the 
Project, including those received on the Draft and Final EISs. Another 
consideration was the extent to which each alternative under 
consideration would meet the following BPA purposes (i.e., objectives) 
identified in the Final EIS:
     Maintain the electrical stability and reliability of the 
FCRTS;
     Continue to meet BPA's statutory and contractual 
obligations;
     Act consistently with BPA's environmental and social 
responsibilities; and
     Provide for cost and administrative efficiency.
    Finally, BPA took into consideration the State of Washington's 
siting authority and regulatory jurisdiction over the Wind Project, the 
information from the state's lengthy and extremely thorough siting 
process for the Wind Project, and the unanimous Washington Supreme 
Court decision upholding the Governor's approval of the Wind Project. 
The entire record of EFSEC's administrative proceedings for the Wind 
Project--including the EIS process and the adjudication--was certified 
to the Washington Supreme Court. BPA has considered that record in 
making its decision.
    After considering and balancing all of these factors, BPA has 
decided to grant the requested interconnection and offer an LGIA to 
WRE. Approving this interconnection is consistent with the policies 
embodied in BPA's transmission tariff, which is based on allowing open 
access to transmission and interconnection services on the FCRTS. BPA 
has adopted its tariff to be consistent with national policy 
promulgated by FERC that directs transmission providers to provide open 
access to their transmission systems. Because WRE has complied with the 
established tariff procedures for proposed interconnections, BPA 
believes it is appropriate under its tariff to grant WRE's 
interconnection request.
    Granting the requested interconnection will not interfere with or 
otherwise affect BPA's ability to maintain the stability and 
reliability of its transmission system. The physical interconnection of 
the Wind Project to the FCRTS will be designed and constructed to meet 
applicable reliability criteria and standards intended to maintain 
system stability, and the LGIA will include operating parameters and 
other provisions to ensure that operation of the Wind Project will not 
impair system reliability. Furthermore, BPA's implementation of its 
part of the Proposed Action will not interfere with BPA's ability to 
meet its statutory and contractual obligations. Although BPA has no 
express statutory or contractual obligation to construct the new 
substation that will be built for this interconnection, constructing 
the substation is consistent with BPA's statutory directive to make 
additions to the transmission system, as appropriate, in order to 
integrate and transmit electric power and maintain system stability and 
reliability.
    BPA has adopted measures to ensure that granting the requested 
interconnection will not contribute to issues caused by generation 
oversupply conditions on BPA's transmission system at certain times of 
the year. To address these issues, BPA developed an Oversupply 
Management Protocol (Protocol) as an amendment to its transmission 
tariff. This Protocol provides a set of policies and operational 
practices that allow for the management of oversupply events while 
complying with environmental responsibilities as well as satisfying 
statutory and contractual obligations and maintaining reliability and 
stability. These Protocol goals align with BPA's purposes identified in 
the Final EIS. The Protocol was approved by FERC late last year, which 
has provided certainty with respect to BPA's approach to the management 
of oversupply events. Because the Wind Project will be subject to the 
Protocol through its LGIA, the Wind Project will not exacerbate 
operational and reliability issues associated with future oversupply 
events that may occur.
    Granting the requested interconnection will serve to integrate a 
new renewable generating resource. This will be consistent with certain 
FERC interconnection policies intended to help facilitate the 
integration of new renewable resources, which in turn are consistent 
with the Obama Administration's policies and action plan to address 
climate change by increasing reliance on renewable resources to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions.
    In planning and designing the Wind Project, it is clear that WRE 
attempted to minimize potential environmental impacts where possible. 
In addition, EFSEC and BPA have identified numerous mitigation measures 
in the Final EIS to further reduce, avoid, or compensate for Project 
impacts. These measures are also included as conditions in the Final 
SCA for the Wind Project that EFSEC has found will ensure that the 
Project will produce minimal adverse environmental impacts. 
Nonetheless, it is acknowledged that the Project will create a number 
of environmental impacts even with the implementation of mitigation. 
These impacts, which are fully disclosed in the Final EIS, primarily 
include disturbance of soils, conversion of habitat, direct mortality 
of birds, increases in noise and traffic in the vicinity, and--
characterized by EFSEC as the ``most hotly contested''--impacts to 
scenic resources.
    BPA understands the sensitivities of many individuals to these 
impacts, and recognizes that the prospect of these impacts has led 
certain individuals--as well as some groups such as Friends--to oppose 
the Wind Project. BPA also appreciates that the Columbia River Gorge is 
a special place to many people and is one of the landscapes that makes 
the Pacific Northwest great. However, with the extensive mitigation 
measures that have been identified and SCA conditions that have been 
imposed, BPA believes that the Project will be implemented in an 
environmentally responsible manner. In addition, in making a decision 
to grant the requested interconnection, BPA believes it has fully 
carried out its environmental responsibilities under NEPA, the ESA, and 
other applicable environmental laws.
    Concerning impacts to scenic resources, BPA recognizes that the 
State of Washington's decision to deny turbine strings A-1 through A-7 
and C-1 through C-8 served to mitigate the most significant visual 
impacts of the Wind Project. Accordingly, these impacts have been 
substantially reduced from those depicted in the visual simulations 
included in the Final EIS. BPA respects and appreciates the sentiments 
expressed by Governor Gregoire in her March 2012 approval letter 
concerning the evaluation of visual impacts that led to the state's 
decision to not approve the most visually prominent turbines associated 
with the Wind Project. BPA agrees that the Columbia River Gorge is a 
unique and beautiful landscape, and that proposed development within 
view of the Columbia River Gorge--even if

[[Page 41029]]

outside of the Scenic Area as is the case with the Wind Project--
warrants thoughtful and careful consideration of its potential to 
impact scenic resources. BPA believes that such consideration has been 
amply demonstrated in this case, and that definite and effective action 
has been taken by the State of Washington to reasonably help protect 
views as a result of this consideration. Furthermore, BPA agrees with 
the Governor that the state-approved Wind Project strikes an effective 
balance between minimizing visual impacts while still carrying out the 
public interest of the State of Washington in approving sites for 
alternative energy facilities.
    The total cost of the BPA interconnection facilities is estimated 
at $12.6 million. All costs associated with these facilities will be 
advance funded by WRE and administration of contracts with WRE will 
follow normal, established procedures. In accordance with BPA's open 
access transmission tariff, WRE will be eligible to receive 
transmission credits for any portion of the interconnection facilities 
that constitute network upgrades. BPA believes that this approach 
provides for both cost and administrative efficiencies.
    Finally, in deciding to grant the requested interconnection, BPA 
believes it is being appropriately respectful of state authorities 
concerning the siting of non-federal generation projects. As has been 
mentioned previously in this Record of Decision, BPA does not have 
siting authority or regulatory jurisdiction over these facilities. That 
is the purview of appropriate state and local entities, in this case 
Washington EFSEC and, ultimately, the Washington Governor. BPA notes 
that the siting process conducted by the State of Washington for the 
Wind Project was both lengthy and extremely thorough, and addressed 
many of the same environmental issues also considered in the Final EIS 
for the Project. BPA also notes that the State of Washington decided to 
approve construction and operation of the Wind Project on the basis of 
the siting process and Final EIS. Finally, BPA notes that this approval 
was upheld by the Washington Supreme Court in a legal challenge of the 
siting process brought against the State of Washington. In light of 
this, granting the requested interconnection provides the appropriate 
comity to the State of Washington's legally executed overall 
authorities concerning the siting of the Wind Project.

Mitigation

    All the mitigation measures described in the Draft EIS and updated 
in the Final EIS have been adopted. A complete list of these measures 
can be found in the Mitigation Action Plan. WRE will be responsible for 
executing mitigation measures identified for the Wind Project, while 
BPA will be responsible for executing the mitigation measures 
associated with the BPA interconnection facilities.
    In addition to identifying mitigation measures in the EIS, the 
State of Washington has included numerous conditions in the Final SCA 
for the Wind Project that are intended to ensure that the Wind Project 
is built and operated in a way that preserves and protects the quality 
of the environment. As environmental mitigation, Washington EFSEC has 
found that these conditions will ensure that the Project will produce 
minimal adverse environmental effects. WRE will be required to comply 
with these Final SCA conditions. As discussed above, the Final SCA is 
available at http://www.efsec.wa.gov/whistling%20ridge.shtml.

    Issued in Portland, Oregon.

    Dated: June 24, 2015.
Elliot E. Mainzer,
Administrator and Chief Executive Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-17087 Filed 7-13-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P