[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60102-60107]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24388]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Western Area Power Administration
South Dakota PrairieWinds Project (DOE/EIS-0418)
AGENCY: Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of Record of Decision and Floodplain Statement of
Findings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Western Area Power Administration (Western) received two
requests from Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin Electric); one to
interconnect their proposed South Dakota PrairieWinds Project (Proposed
Project) and one to interconnect the South Dakota Wind Partners, LLC's
(Wind Partners') proposed development to Western's transmission system.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service (RUS), also
received a request from Basin Electric for financial assistance for the
Proposed Project. RUS is a joint lead agency in the Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) process.
The Proposed Project includes a 151.5-megawatt (MW) nameplate
capacity wind-powered energy generation facility that would feature 101
wind turbine generators; 6,000 square-foot operations and maintenance
building and fence perimeter; 64 miles of underground communication
system and electrical collector lines (within the same trench); 34.5-
kilovolt (kV) to 230-kV collector substation and microwave tower; 11
mile-long overhead 230-kV transmission line; temporary equipment/
material storage or lay-down areas; temporary batch plant; temporary
crane walks; and 81 miles of new and/or upgraded service roads to
access the facilities. Wind Partners' proposed development would
include the installation of an additional seven turbines within the
Crow Lake Alternative and use a portion of the other facilities
described for the Proposed Project. Through an agreement between Basin
Electric and Wind Partners, Basin Electric would construct, operate,
and maintain the Wind Partners' proposed development.
Western considered the interconnection requests under the
provisions of its Open Access Transmission Service Tariff (Tariff),
along with the information in the EIS and all comments received, and
has made the decision to allow both of Basin Electric's requests to
interconnect at Western's existing Wessington Springs Substation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please contact Ms. Liana Reilly,
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Document Manager, Western Area
Power Administration, P.O. Box 281213, Lakewood, CO 80228; telephone
(800) 336-7288 or e-mail [email protected] for additional
information concerning the Proposed Project and Wind Partners' proposed
development.
For general information on the Department of Energy's (DOE) NEPA
review process, please contact Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office
of NEPA Policy and Compliance, GC-54, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585; telephone (800) 472-
2756.
For information on RUS financing, contact Mr. Dennis Rankin,
Project Manager, Engineering and Environmental Staff, Rural Utilities
Service, Utilities Program, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Mail Stop
1571, Washington, DC 20250-1571, telephone (202) 720-1953 or e-mail
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Western is a Federal agency within the DOE
that markets and transmits wholesale electrical power through an
integrated 17,000-mile, high-voltage transmission system across 15
western states.
[[Page 60103]]
Western received two requests from Basin Electric; one to interconnect
the Proposed Project and one to interconnect the Wind Partners'
proposed development, to Western's transmission system. The Proposed
Project and the Wind Partners' proposed development are located within
Western's Upper Great Plains Region, which operates and maintains
nearly 100 substations and nearly 7,800 miles of Federal transmission
lines in Minnesota, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, and
Iowa.
Western and RUS published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an
EIS on April 7, 2009, (74 FR 15718). A Notice of Availability of the
Draft EIS was published by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) on January 15, 2010 (75 FR 2540), and a Notice of
Availability of the Final EIS was published by the EPA on July 30, 2010
(75 FR 44951).
Western's Purpose and Need
Western's need for action is triggered by Basin Electric's
interconnection requests. Western's Tariff describes the conditions
necessary for access to its transmission system. Western provides an
interconnection if there is available capacity on the transmission
system, while considering transmission system reliability and power
delivery to existing customers, and the applicant's objectives.
Western's Proposed Action
Western's Federal involvement, under the provisions of the Tariff,
is limited to consideration of Basin Electric's interconnection request
for their Proposed Project and the interconnection request for the Wind
Partners' proposed development. Western's Proposed Action is to
interconnect the Proposed Project and Wind Partners' proposed
development to Western's transmission system. This involves adding
electrical equipment to the Wessington Springs Substation and making
other minor system modifications within the substation.
Basin Electric's Purpose and Need
Public policy regarding the electric industry has increasingly
focused on the carbon intensity of the resources commonly used to
generate electricity. As a result, incentives and regulations to
encourage or require the generation of power from renewable or low-
environmental-impact resources are being actively considered and/or
implemented within the Basin Electric member service areas. With
members in nine States, Basin Electric recognizes the need for
additional renewable energy capacity to service forecasted member load-
growth demands and to meet State-mandated RPS. In addition, Basin
Electric membership passed a resolution at their 2005 annual meeting
that established a goal to, ``obtain renewable or environmentally
benign resources equal to 10 percent of the MW capacity needed to meet
its member demand by 2010.''
Basin Electric's 2007 Power Supply Analysis (PSA) provided an in-
depth look at Basin Electric's current operating system, future load
growth and the framework for future expansion, including both supply-
side and demand-side resource expansion. All future expansion
portfolios include wind energy development. Basin Electric determined
that a 151.5-MW wind farm would be the best available, least-cost
renewable resource energy generation option to meet the State-mandated
RPS and renewable energy objective (REO), meet Basin Electric's
renewable energy goal established in 2005, and serve forecasted member
load-growth demands. With the addition of 151.5 MW from the Proposed
Project, Basin Electric would be able to meet the REO requirements for
those States that currently have them.
Basin Electric's Proposed Project
The Proposed Project includes a 151.5-MW nameplate capacity wind-
powered energy generation facility that would feature 101 wind turbine
generators, operations and maintenance building and fence perimeter,
underground communication system and electrical collector lines (within
the same trench), collector substation and microwave tower, overhead
transmission line, temporary equipment/material storage or lay-down
areas, temporary batch plant, temporary crane walks, and new and/or
upgraded service roads to access the facilities.
Wind Partners' Purpose and Need
The Wind Partners' proposed development would enable local
community involvement and investment in wind projects. The proposed
development would also help meet the State of South Dakota's voluntary
REO of 10 percent.
Wind Partners' Proposed Development
The Wind Partners' proposed development would include the
installation of an additional seven turbines within the Crow Lake
Alternative and use a portion of the other facilities described for the
Proposed Project. Through an agreement between Basin Electric and Wind
Partners, Basin Electric would construct, operate, and maintain the
Wind Partners' proposed development.
Alternatives Considered
The EIS reviewed the options considered by Basin Electric in its
PrairieWinds--SD 1 Alternative Evaluation Analysis and Site Selection
Study (PrairieWinds Study). The PrairieWinds Study determined a wind
project to be the best available, least-cost renewable resource option
to satisfy future load and RPS requirements. Western has no decision-
making authority over these options. Western's Federal involvement is
limited to the determination of whether to allow the interconnections
of the Proposed Project and the Wind Partners' proposed development.
For the purposes of furthering environmental decision making, the EIS
analyzed three alternatives: No Action Alternative, Crow Lake
Alternative, and Winner Alternative.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, Western would deny the
interconnection request(s) and RUS would not provide financial
assistance for the Proposed Project. For the purpose of impact analysis
and comparison in the EIS, it was assumed that the Proposed Project and
Wind Partners' proposed development would not be built and the
environmental impacts, both positive and negative, associated with
construction and operation would not occur. However, Basin Electric is
a regulated utility with load growth responsibility and a need to meet
RPSs, REOs, and renewable energy goals; therefore, it is reasonable to
expect that it would construct a similar generation facility elsewhere
in South Dakota. Such a facility might not interconnect to a Federal
transmission system, involve Federal financing, or have any other
Federal nexus that would require a NEPA process.
Crow Lake Alternative
The Crow Lake Alternative is located on approximately 36,000 acres
approximately 15 miles north of the City of White Lake, South Dakota,
within Aurora, Brule, and Jerauld counties, and would interconnect with
Western's Wessington Springs Substation, located in Jerauld County,
South Dakota. The Proposed Project includes a 151.5-MW nameplate
capacity wind-powered energy generation facility that would feature 101
wind turbine generators; 6,000 square-foot operations and maintenance
building and fence perimeter; 64 miles of underground
[[Page 60104]]
communication system and electrical collector lines (within the same
trench); 34.5-kV to 230-kV collector substation and microwave tower; 11
mile-long overhead 230-kV transmission line; equipment/material storage
or lay-down areas (temporary impact of 10 acres); batch plant
(temporary impact of 8 acres); crane walks (temporary impact of 254.6
acres); and 81 miles of new and/or upgraded service roads to access the
facilities. Wind Partners' proposed development would include the
installation of an additional seven turbines within the Crow Lake
Alternative and share use of a small portion of the other facilities
described for the Proposed Project. Through an agreement between Basin
Electric and Wind Partners, Basin Electric would construct, operate,
and maintain the Wind Partners' proposed development. The Crow Lake
Alternative would result in a temporary impact to 1,006 acres and
permanent impact to 190 acres.
Winner Alternative
The Winner Alternative is located on an approximately 83,000-acre
area entirely within Tripp County, approximately eight miles south of
the City of Winner, South Dakota, and would interconnect with Western's
Winner Substation, located in Tripp County, South Dakota. The Proposed
Project would be similar to that described for the Crow Lake
Alternative with the following exceptions: it includes 108 miles of
underground communication system and electrical collector lines (within
the same trench); 34.5-kV to 115-kV collector substation and microwave
tower; a 10 to 11 mile-long overhead 115-kV transmission line;
equipment/material storage or lay-down areas (temporary impact of 40
acres); crane walks (temporary impact of 530 acres); and117 miles of
new and/or upgraded service roads to access the facilities. The Winner
Alternative would result in a temporary impact to 3,187 acres and
permanent impact to 261 acres. The Wind Partners' proposed development
does not pertain to the Winner Alternative.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative
As required by 40 CFR 1505.2(b), Western has identified the No
Action Alternative as the environmentally preferred alternative. Under
this alternative, Western would deny the interconnection requests and
not modify its transmission system to interconnect the Proposed Project
and Wind Partners' proposed development and it was assumed for the EIS
that the associated environmental impacts would not occur. However,
Western must respond to Basin Electric's interconnection requests under
the terms of the Tariff. The Tariff and underlying Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) orders mandating open access to
transmission systems establish conditions under which interconnection
requests must be considered (FERC Order Nos. 888 and 888-A).
Agency Preferred Alternative
Western's Tariff provides open access to its transmission system.
If there is available capacity in the transmission system, Western
provides transmission services through an interconnection. Transmission
studies completed for the Crow Lake Alternative demonstrate that
transmission capacity is available for the Proposed Project through an
interconnection at Western's existing Wessington Springs Substation
without the need to expand the substation. Facility expansion may be
required at Western's Winner Substation to accommodate interconnecting
the Winner Alternative. Since transmission capacity is available for
the Crow Lake Alternative and transmission studies have demonstrated
that system reliability and service to existing customers would not be
jeopardized, and taking into account the environmental impacts, the
interconnection at Western's Wessington Springs Substation was
identified as Western's preferred alternative in the Final EIS.
Environmental Impacts
The analysis in the Final EIS demonstrated that the Proposed
Project and Wind Partners' proposed development (at the Crow Lake
Alternative) would have no impacts or less than significant impacts on
geology and soils, water, land use (including farmland and recreation),
transportation, visual resources, noise, socioeconomics, environmental
justice, cultural resources, and health and safety. Expected impacts on
other environmental resources are discussed below. The analysis in the
Final EIS also demonstrated that Western's proposed action would have
no impacts or less than significant impacts to all resources since
modifications required for the interconnection would be confined to the
existing Wessington Springs Substation.
Air Quality and Climate Change
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is one of six greenhouse gases
(GHGs) that contribute to climate change and represents approximately
84 percent of all GHG emissions in the United States. Wind power
generates electricity without air emissions, including CO2.
Within South Dakota, CO2 emissions resulting from fossil
fuel combustion totaled 13.78 million tons in 2007; of these,
activities related to the generation of electric power accounted for
2.96 million tons of CO2. Further, operation of the Proposed
Project and Wind Partners' proposed development would avoid 726,600
metric tons of CO2 emissions per year compared to the
average emissions of fossil fueled generating stations employed in
South Dakota; thus, would contribute to the national and State efforts
to minimize GHG emissions. This amount avoided is equal to the annual
CO2 emissions of approximately 130,000 average passenger
cars.
Biology
Avian mortality from collisions with turbines would likely occur.
Data obtained through baseline avian use surveys and local habitat
characterization suggest that avian mortality rates are likely to be
similar to or lower than those experienced at other United States wind
farms. Based on the anticipated low level of mortality and
incorporation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), Applicants' Proposed
Measures (APMs), Operations and Monitoring Plan (OMP), and voluntary
conservation measures for habitat offsets, impacts to birds would be
less than significant. Based on existing avian use data from the Crow
Lake Alternative, bird fatalities are expected to be low compared with
other wind facilities around the United States.
Bat mortality from collisions with turbines would likely occur.
Some researchers have concluded that observed mortality rates do not
have population-level effects, and no significant difference has been
noted in mortality rates at lit and unlit turbines. Preliminary data
from bat call studies in 2009 indicate low bat activity in the Crow
Lake Alternative; therefore, the frequency of collisions may be low
based on recently collected bat data. Additionally, the incorporation
of APMs, BMPs, and an OMP would minimize impacts to bats.
Public Involvement
An NOI describing the proposed action was published in the Federal
Register on April 7, 2009 (74 FR 15718). The NOI announced the intent
to prepare an EIS on the Proposed Project, described the proposal,
provided scoping meeting locations and dates, started a 30-day comment
period, and provided contacts for further information about the
Proposed Project and for submitting scoping comments.
[[Page 60105]]
The public scoping meetings were held at Winner, South Dakota, on April
28, 2009, and at Plankinton, South Dakota, on April 29, 2009. Western
and RUS held an interagency meeting in Pierre, South Dakota, on April
28, 2009. A total of 77 written comment documents from agencies and
individuals were received during the scoping period; these comments
were addressed in the Draft EIS.
A Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS was published by the EPA
in the Federal Register on January 15, 2010 (75 FR 2540). Western and
RUS held an interagency meeting in Pierre, South Dakota, on February
11, 2010. A public hearing to receive comments on the Draft EIS was
held in Chamberlain, South Dakota, on February 11, 2010. Comments from
three individuals were transcribed for the record during the public
hearing and 30 written comment documents were received from agencies
and individuals. Substantive, factual, and editorial comments were
incorporated and addressed in the Final EIS; other comments not
affecting the substance of the document have been noted.
The EPA published the Notice of Availability of the Final EIS on
July 30, 2010. The 30-day review period ended on August 30, 2010. Two
comments were received on the Final EIS (see below for response to
comments on Final EIS).
Mitigation Measures
Through public and agency participation in the NEPA process, Basin
Electric has altered the design of the Proposed Project and Wind
Partners' proposed development to minimize impacts to the environment.
As described in Chapter 2 of the Final EIS, the Proposed Project and
Wind Partners' proposed development include APMs, BMPs, OMP, and
voluntary conservation measures for habitat offsets to minimize,
monitor, and/or mitigate environmental impacts. Generally, the APMs and
BMPs represent standard measures to minimize impacts associated with
construction and operation. The OMP provides a framework for post-
construction wildlife monitoring for whooping cranes, bird and bat
mortality, grassland breeding birds, and avian use. Basin Electric
included voluntary conservation measures to offset indirect impacts to
wetland and grassland habitat; the offsets included compensation for
76.7 acres of wetland habitat and 675 acres of grassland habitat and
were developed in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS). Furthermore, Basin Electric has committed to identify
potential effects of the Proposed Project and Wind Partners' proposed
development on birds and bats and to use the results of their 3-year
Bird and Bat Fatality Monitoring to identify and incorporate, to the
extent practicable, measures to minimize bird and bat mortality.
Western's authority is limited to mitigation associated with the
interconnection of the Proposed Project and the Wind Partners' proposed
development. Western will adhere to its own standard mitigation
measures for all modifications within Wessington Springs Substation.
Consultation
Western is the lead Federal agency for compliance with section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 479(f)). By letter
of June 30, 2010, the South Dakota State Historic Preservation Officer
concurred with the determination of No Adverse Effect based on the
stipulations outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding entitled
``Memorandum of Understanding among Western Area Power Administration,
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, Flandreau Santee
Sioux Tribe, Fort Peck Tribes, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, Lower Sioux
Indian Community, Oglala Sioux Tribe, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Santee Sioux
Tribe, Sisseton-Wahpeton Dakota Nation, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe,
Spirit Lake Tribal Council, Three Affiliated Tribes, Upper Sioux Indian
Community, Yankton Sioux Tribe, Wahpetkute Band of the Dakota, the
South Dakota State Historic Preservation Officer, and Basin Electric
Power Cooperative, regarding Treatment of Archaeological and TCP
Historic Properties for the South Dakota Prairie Winds Project.''
Western will ensure that the provisions outlined in the MOU are
implemented.
RUS is the lead Federal agency for compliance with section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536). On February 18, 2010, a
Biological Assessment was prepared and submitted with a determination
that the Proposed Project and Wind Partners' proposed development would
not likely affect the piping plover and is likely to adversely affect
the whooping crane. The USFWS concurred via a March 16, 2010, letter
with RUS's determination that the Proposed Project is not likely to
adversely affect the piping plover and is likely to adversely affect
the whooping crane. In the Biological Opinion dated July 13, 2010, the
USFWS concluded that, ``after reviewing the current status of the
whooping crane, the environmental baseline for the action area, the
effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is the
Service's biological opinion that the SDPW project [the Proposed
Project and Wind Partners' proposed development] is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the whooping crane. Critical
habitat for the whooping crane has been designated in other areas
within the species' range but not in the action area nor in South
Dakota; therefore, destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat will not occur.'' Section 7 consultation has concluded and the
Biological Opinion identified that no terms and conditions or
reasonable and prudent measures are required for the Proposed Project
and Wind Partners' proposed development.
Floodplains and Wetlands
In accordance with 10 CFR Part 1022, Western considered the
potential impacts of the Proposed Project and Wind Partners' proposed
development on floodplains and wetlands. The Federal Emergency
Management Agency has not mapped flood hazards in the unincorporated
areas of Brule and Jerauld counties. Aurora County has been mapped and
is designated as Zone D (i.e., areas with possible but undetermined
flood hazards, no flood hazard analysis has been conducted). Impacts to
floodplains would be negligible because components would not be located
in the areas that are the most prone to flooding (streams and wetlands
[see below for wetland determination]), the impact area represents a
small and dispersed footprint (190 acres spread across the 36,000 acre
site), and engineering design and controls would minimize risk to and/
or from flooding.
Field investigations were conducted to verify National Wetland
Inventory (NWI) wetlands and map the actual location of wetlands within
the Crow Lake Alternative. Wetlands that were field-verified (not NWI
wetlands) were used in the impact analysis because (1) they were
identified in the field as opposed to NWI wetlands that are identified
on maps and not field-verified, and (2) field-verified wetlands
accounted for a larger, more conservative, acreage than NWI wetlands.
In addition, wetlands (including jurisdictional, non-jurisdictional and
waters of the U.S., collectively termed ``wetlands'') were delineated
for the Crow Lake Alternative. Basin Electric has committed to a
voluntary conservation measure to offset 76.7 acres of indirect impact
(i.e., species avoidance effects) to wetland habitat. As currently
[[Page 60106]]
designed, the Proposed Project would have no temporary or permanent
direct impacts to wetlands.
Some of the Proposed Project components have been adjusted based on
engineering and resource issues since the original surveys were
completed; therefore, additional wetland delineations will be completed
within impact areas after final design with the intent that all
wetlands will be identified and avoided. Upon final design, if wetlands
cannot be avoided, further coordination will occur between Basin
Electric and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Basin Electric
would obtain the necessary permit(s) under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and mitigate for impacts prior to
construction.
A similar wetland delineation process will be conducted for the
Wind Partners' proposed development, prior to the start of
construction, in accordance with USACE standard protocols to identify
and avoid wetlands. If final engineering results in layout
modifications, then additional delineations will be performed within
the final impact areas to identify wetlands that require minor project
facility re-routes such that wetlands will be avoided. Although not
anticipated, if impacts to wetlands (including jurisdictional waters of
the U.S. [collectively termed ``wetlands'']) are unavoidable, then
Basin Electric would obtain a section 404 Permit through the USACE.
Comments on Final EIS
Western received comments from the EPA in a letter dated August 26,
2010, and comments from the USFWS through the U.S. Department of the
Interior (DOI) in a letter dated August 27, 2010. Based on a review of
these comments, Western has determined that the comments do not present
any significant new circumstances or information relevant to
environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Project or Wind
Partners' proposed development or associated impacts, and thus a
Supplemental EIS is not required. The basis for this determination is
summarized below.
EPA noted that the Final EIS addressed many of their concerns on
the Draft EIS, including cumulative impacts and protection of wetlands.
Additionally, EPA recommended that the ROD require that wetlands be
avoided and describe how this will be implemented; outline how Basin
Electric will comply with the State's construction stormwater permit
and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan requirements; and outline how
roads and project features will be maintained to minimize or prevent
erosion and/or stormwater runoff. Basin Electric has committed to
avoiding wetlands and has modified the locations of Proposed Project
components in accordance with this commitment (see above for wetland
determination). The State of South Dakota issued Basin Electric a
General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction
Activities on July 30, 2010. Basin Electric will comply with this and
all other State and Federal laws and regulations. Basin Electric has
conducted geotechnical investigations and will consider compaction
requirements for backfill, depth to the saturated zone, slope, erosion
potential, and other similar factors in the engineering design of
roadways and other project area features. Grading, drainage, roadway,
and other project area feature designs will be engineered to manage
runoff, and minimize/prevent erosion. Long-term stability of restored
temporary disturbance areas and areas with permanent installations will
be managed in accordance with the APMs and BMPs.
DOI's letter provided the following recommended corrections and
offsetting measures: correct and clarify acres of affected habitat
(wetland easements); prepare a voluntary Avian and Bat Protection Plan
(ABPP) in coordination with USFWS; and include recurring costs of
managing habitat offset lands. The following provides clarification on
the potential impacts to USFWS wetland and grassland easements. The
Final EIS correctly notes that the USFWS administers wetland easements
within 15 parcels in the Crow Lake Alternative. Geospatial data for the
locations of wetland easements was obtained from USFWS; per this data,
the agencies included the entire area of the parcels in their
assessment of wetland easement area estimates (2,718 acres within the
project boundary or 2,836 acres including the full area for those
parcels that are bisected by the project boundary). DOI's letter
provided clarification that the wetland easements pertain only to the
protected wetland basins within a portion of these parcels and portions
of the parcels containing wetland easements are actually unprotected
upland areas. Components of the Proposed Project and Wind Partners'
proposed development located within parcels containing USFWS wetland
easements would be located in the unprotected upland areas of these
parcels. The correct impact estimate is that, while there would be a
temporary impact of 120 acres and a permanent impact of 22 acres within
the unprotected upland portions of parcels containing wetland
easements, the Proposed Project and Wind Partners' proposed development
would result in no temporary or permanent impacts to USFWS wetland
easements. As stated in the Biological Opinion, ``Refuges has worked
with Basin and has determined that there are sites for project
facilities that would have an acceptably minimal impact on the wildlife
resources of the area.''
The DOI letter provided a recommendation that an ABPP be prepared
in coordination with USFWS before project operations commence and that
the ABPP provide a process whereby the results of the OMP, ``will be
used to identify and incorporate, to the extent practicable, measures
to minimize bird and bat mortality.'' DOI also noted that an ABPP and
Adaptive Management Plan were identified during prior stages of EIS
development, but were excluded from the Final EIS. As stated in
Appendix F of the Final EIS (Comment and Response), the term ABPP was
used incorrectly in the Draft EIS and was replaced with the OMP, which
is specific to the Proposed Project and Wind Partners' proposed
development, in the Final EIS. Basin Electric is preparing an ABPP per
the Avian Protection Plan Guidelines, developed in part by USFWS. The
ABPP is a corporate level document that is not specific to the Proposed
Project and is not yet complete. The OMP contains project-specific
construction requirements, post-construction monitoring, and reporting
requirements. Furthermore, Basin Electric has committed to identify
potential effects of the Proposed Project and Wind Partners' proposed
development on birds and bats and to use the results of their 3-year
Bird and Bat Fatality Monitoring from the OMP to identify and
incorporate, to the extent practicable, measures to minimize bird and
bat mortality.
The DOI letter also provided a recommendation to ensure that all
lands for both temporary and permanent habitat impacts are offset and
include a source of funds for both acquisition and recurring
management. The agencies and Basin Electric had discussions with USFWS
on April 6, 2010, regarding compensatory mitigation and habitat
offsets. Through a voluntary process, Basin Electric included
conservation measures to offset indirect impacts to wetland and
grassland habitat; the offsets included compensation for 76.7 acres of
wetland habitat and 675 acres of grassland habitat and were developed
in coordination with the USFWS.
[[Page 60107]]
Decision
Western's decision is to allow Basin Electric's requests for
interconnection at the Wessington Springs Substation in South Dakota
and to complete modifications to the substation to support the
interconnections.\1\ Western's decision to grant these interconnection
requests satisfies the agency's statutory mission and Basin Electric's
objectives while minimizing harm to the environment. Two
interconnection agreements will be executed in accordance with
Western's Tariff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Western's authority to issue a record of decision for
integrating transmission facilities is pursuant to authority
delegated on October 4, 1999, from the Assistant Secretary for
Environment, Safety and Health to Western's Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basin Electric has committed to minimize the Proposed Project and
Wind Partners' proposed development impact on the environment through
design and incorporation of APMs, BMPS, OMP, and voluntary conservation
measures for habitat offsets as described in Chapter 2 of the Final EIS
and summarized above. The Proposed Project and Wind Partner's proposed
development employ all practicable means to avoid or minimize
environmental harm. Furthermore, Basin Electric has committed to use
the results of their 3-year Bird and Bat Fatality Monitoring from the
OMP to identify and incorporate, to the extent practicable, measures to
minimize bird and bat mortality. Western will adhere to its own
standard mitigation measures for all modifications within Wessington
Springs Substation. Western will ensure that the stipulations of the
MOU are executed in support of section 106 of the NHPA in carrying out
its decision.
This decision is based on the information contained in the South
Dakota PrairieWinds Project Final EIS (DOE/EIS-0418). The EIS and this
ROD were prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Council on
Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts
1500-1508), DOE Procedures for Implementing NEPA (10 CFR Part 1021),
and DOE's Floodplain/Wetland Review Requirements (10 CFR Part 1022).
Full implementation of this decision is contingent upon the Proposed
Project and Wind Partners' proposed development obtaining all
applicable permits and approvals.
Dated: September 21, 2010.
Timothy J. Meeks,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-24388 Filed 9-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P