[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 165 (Wednesday, August 26, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51800-51802]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21131]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Western Area Power Administration


Record of Decision for Upper Great Plains Wind Energy Final 
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0408)

AGENCY: Western Area Power Administration, DOE.

ACTION: Record of Decision.

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

SUMMARY: The Western Area Power Administration (Western) and the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), as joint lead agencies, issued the 
Upper Great Plains Wind Energy Final Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement (Final PEIS) (DOE/EIS-0408) on May 1, 2015. Western has 
decided to implement Alternative 1 as described in the Final PEIS and 
summarized in this Record of Decision (ROD). Alternative 1 was 
identified as both the agency preferred alternative and the 
environmentally preferred alternative.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on Western's proposed 
programmatic environmental evaluation procedures for wind energy 
project interconnections and general information about interconnections 
with Western's transmission system, contact Matt Marsh, Regional 
Environmental Manager, Upper Great Plains Customer Service Region, 
Western Area Power Administration, P.O. Box 35800, Billings, MT 59107-
5800, telephone (406) 255-2810, email [email protected]. The Final PEIS, 
this ROD, and other project documents are available for review on 
Western's Web site at https://www.wapa.gov/regions/UGP/Environment/Pages/ugp-nepa.aspx and the project Web site at http://plainswindeis.anl.gov.
    For general information on the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, please contact 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 (202) 586-4600 or (800) 472-2756, email 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Western and the Service, as joint lead 
agencies, prepared the Upper Great Plains Wind Energy Draft and Final 
PEIS (DOE/EIS-0408), the Final PEIS being issued May 1, 2015 (80 FR 
24915), in response to an increase in wind energy development and 
interconnection requests. Western and the Service have interests in 
streamlining their procedures for conducting environmental reviews of 
wind energy applications by implementing standardized evaluation 
procedures and identifying measures to address potential environmental 
impacts associated with wind energy projects in the Upper Great Plains 
Region (UGP Region), which encompasses all or parts of the states of 
Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. 
Since formalizing the process and procedures for environmental reviews 
would be Federal actions, Western and the Service prepared the PEIS in 
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), as amended, and the Council on Environmental 
Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508). The Bureau of 
Reclamation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Rural Utilities Service 
have participated in the development of the PEIS as cooperating 
agencies.
    Western and the Service have cooperatively prepared the PEIS to: 
(1) Assess the potential environmental impacts associated with wind 
energy projects within the UGP Region that may interconnect to 
Western's transmission system, or that may propose placement of project 
elements on grassland or wetland easements managed by the Service; and 
(2) evaluate how environmental impacts would differ under alternative 
sets of environmental evaluation procedures, best management practices, 
avoidance strategies, and mitigation measures that the agencies would 
request project developers to implement, as appropriate, for specific 
wind energy projects.
    The objective of the PEIS is to proactively strengthen and 
streamline the environmental review process by having already analyzed 
and addressed general environmental concerns while specifically 
providing for Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 
compliance for wind development projects that incorporate design 
elements to reduce impacts. The PEIS analyzes, to the extent 
practicable, the impacts resulting from development of wind energy 
projects and the effectiveness of best management practices, avoidance 
of sensitive areas, and mitigation measures in reducing potential 
impacts. Impacts and mitigation have been analyzed for each 
environmental resource, and all components of wind energy projects have 
been addressed, including turbines, transformers, collector lines, 
overhead lines, access roads, substation installations, and operational 
and maintenance activities. Many of the potential impacts resulting 
from constructing and operating these types of wind energy 
infrastructure are well known from existing wind energy generation 
projects. The environmental procedures and mitigation strategies 
developed have been structured to be consistent with Western's Open 
Access Transmission Service Tariff and Southwest Power Pool, Inc.'s 
(SPP) Open Access Transmission Tariff, both of which include 
environmental review provisions.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Western's UGP Region has signed a membership agreement with 
SPP with a target date of transferring the functional control of its 
facilities in the eastern interconnection to SPP on October 1, 2015. 
Thereafter interconnection requests would be pursuant to the SPP 
tariff. Revisions to the SPP tariff incorporate Western's 
requirement that it will still perform NEPA reviews on 
interconnections associated with its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the PEIS, Western and the Service engaged in 
informal consultation under Section 7 of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1536, in 
support of the PEIS process. A programmatic biological assessment 
(Programmatic BA) was prepared for listed and candidate species 
occurring in the UGP Region. Development of the Programmatic BA was 
closely coordinated with the Service's North Dakota Ecological Services 
Field Office. That office issued a letter of concurrence with the 
Programmatic BA on July 7, 2015, as a result of this consultation.
    The agencies also investigated a programmatic approach to Section 
106 consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 
54 U.S.C. 306108. Since Section 106 consultation is highly site-
specific, it was determined that effective consultation could only be 
accomplished once an individual project location was defined. However, 
general avoidance and protection measures for cultural resources and 
historic properties that would be implemented were identified and 
included in the analysis.

Purpose and Need

    Western's purpose and need for Federal action was presented in the 
Draft and Final PEIS: Western needs to streamline the environmental 
review process for wind energy project interconnection requests to help

[[Page 51801]]

expedite wind energy resource development in the UGP Region while 
maintaining environmental protections.

Description of Alternatives

    Four alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, were 
analyzed in the PEIS and are briefly described below. More detailed 
information on the alternatives may be found in the Final PEIS, which 
can be accessed from the Web site provided above.
    No Action Alternative: Under the No Action Alternative, Western 
would continue to consider wind energy project interconnection requests 
under the procedures currently used to evaluate and address the 
environmental impacts associated with wind energy projects. Requests 
would be processed, reviewed, and evaluated on a case-by-case basis, 
including separate NEPA, ESA Section 7, and NHPA Section 106 reviews 
performed for each specific project.
    Alternative 1--Preferred Alternative: Under Alternative 1, Western 
would adopt a standardized process for collecting information and 
evaluating and reviewing environmental impacts of wind energy 
interconnection requests. Best management practices and mitigation 
measures developed in the PEIS programmatic process would be employed 
to minimize the potential environmental impacts of wind energy 
interconnection projects. Project-specific NEPA analyses, either 
environmental assessments (EAs) or streamlined EISs, would tier off 
(eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues) the analyses in 
the Final PEIS as long as the appropriate identified conservation 
measures were implemented as part of proposed projects. In accordance 
with 40 CFR 1502.20, these project-specific NEPA documents would 
summarize the information and issues covered in the Final PEIS or 
incorporate relevant discussions by reference. This approach would 
allow for more efficient NEPA documents that would properly focus on 
local or site-specific issues. The decision to pursue a tiered EA or 
EIS would be made similar to any other proposal. If the potential for 
new significant impact appeared low, then an EA process could be 
initiated, with the understanding that the identification of any 
potentially new significant impact would require transition to an EIS 
process. It is anticipated that the tiered NEPA document in most 
instances will be an EA. If there appeared to be a potential for new 
significant environmental impact, based on the project description and 
site location, then a tiered EIS process would be initiated. Western 
may minimize the risk of project and schedule impacts from such a 
transition by conducting public scoping--informing the public about a 
federal action and soliciting public comments--when using a tiered EA 
process.
    Project-specific ESA Section 7 consultations would utilize the 
Programmatic BA so long as the applicable best management practices, 
minimization measures, mitigation measures, and monitoring requirements 
established in the Programmatic BA were implemented. Project proponents 
who could not agree to the requirements in the Programmatic BA would be 
required to conduct a separate ESA Section 7 consultation with the 
Service. NHPA Section 106 and related tribal consultation would 
continue unchanged from the present practices; since cultural resources 
issues are very site-specific, it was not possible to address them 
programmatically beyond including general avoidance and protection 
measures and committing to the established processes and procedures.
    The primary objective of Alternative 1 was to collect relevant 
natural resources information; evaluate the typical impacts of wind 
energy projects and associated facilities on those resources; identify 
effective best management practices, minimization measures, and 
mitigation measures that could reduce impacts; provide information 
about areas that would be more sensitive to development impacts and 
encourage avoidance of siting projects in these areas; and have all 
this material available to support site-specific tiered environmental 
reviews. The parallel Programmatic BA would similarly expedite the ESA 
Section 7 consultation by having previously established minimization 
measures, mitigation measures, and monitoring requirements, by species, 
that if committed to and implemented would constitute compliance with 
ESA Section 7 without a separate consultation.
    Alternative 2: Alternative 2 would be exactly the same as 
Alternative 1 for Western. However, under Alternative 2 the Service 
would not allow easement exchanges to accommodate the development of 
wind energy facilities. By comparison, Alternative 1 would provide a 
standardized process for the Service to allow easement exchanges, and 
facilitate wind energy development while retaining or enhancing the 
habitat and wildlife values the easement program was designed to 
provide. The differences in the Service's approach to siting on 
easements do not affect Western's decision, and Western's actions would 
be the same under both alternatives.
    Alternative 3: Under Alternative 3, separate project-specific NEPA 
evaluations would be required for each interconnection request. Western 
would not request additional best management practices or mitigation 
measures of wind energy developers beyond those mandated under 
applicable Federal, State, and local regulations. More effort would be 
required to produce site-specific NEPA documents because of the reduced 
scope of the PEIS, and time frames for the site-specific documents 
would be extended accordingly. In essence Alternative 3 is a minimalist 
programmatic approach that would incorporate all mandated environmental 
review requirements, but would not extend beyond them. Any mandated or 
required provisions included in either Alternative 1 or 2 are also 
incorporated in Alternative 3.
    Since the proposed action is programmatic in nature and did not 
include on-the-ground activities, no direct impacts to the human 
environment would occur under any of the PEIS alternatives. However, 
the PEIS analysis identified generic wind energy development impacts 
and evaluated a large number of best management practices and 
avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. Alternative 1 is the 
environmentally preferred alternative because it develops comprehensive 
procedures and mitigation measures, results in consistency of the 
application and authorization process, and supports wind energy 
development by facilitating the understanding of the requirements for 
approval by potential wind energy project developers. The development 
of renewable energy resources is a priority national policy, and 
Alternative 1 supports that objective. One of the objectives of the 
proposed action was to avoid or minimize environmental harm from future 
wind energy projects, and that objective is best met by Alternative 1.

Decision

    Western has determined that Alternative 1, the agency preferred 
alternative, best meets the agency's needs. Alternative 1 is also the 
environmentally preferred alternative, and would afford the greatest 
protection for environmental resources that would be impacted by future 
wind energy projects. Therefore, it is Western's decision to implement 
Alternative 1, and use the program defined by that alternative for all 
applicable future wind

[[Page 51802]]

energy project interconnection requests in the UGP Region.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On November 16, 2011, DOE's Acting General Counsel restated 
the delegation to Western's Administrator of all the authorities of 
the General Counsel with respect to environmental impact statements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This decision is based on the information contained in the Upper 
Great Plains Wind Energy Final PEIS. This ROD was prepared pursuant to 
the requirements of the CEQ Regulations for Implementing NEPA Sec.  
1505.2 and DOE's NEPA implementing procedures, 10 CFR 1021 et seq.

    Dated: August 17, 2015.
Mark A. Gabriel,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-21131 Filed 8-25-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P