[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 130 (Thursday, July 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44324-44325]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16078]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R6-R-2016-N045; FXRS12610600000-167-FF06R00000]
Upper Great Plains Wind Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement; Record of Decision
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the Western
Area Power Administration (Western), as joint lead agencies, issued the
Upper Great Plains Wind Energy Final Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement (Final PEIS) on May 1, 2015. The Service has decided to
implement Alternative 1, as described in the Final PEIS and summarized
in the Record of Decision (ROD). Alternative 1 was identified as both
the agency-preferred alternative and the environmentally preferred
alternative.
ADDRESSES: You may request copies of the Final PEIS and ROD, or more
information, by one of the following methods.
Web site: http://plainswindeis.anl.gov/.
U.S. Mail: Kelly Hogan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6,
P.O. Box 25486, Denver, CO 80225-0486.
To view comments on the final PEIS from the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), or for information on EPA's role in the EIS
process, see EPA's Role in the EIS Process under SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Hogan, 303-236-4355 (phone) or
[email protected] (email).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Record of Decision (ROD) we announce today documents the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) decision to implement the
Programmatic Regional Wind Energy Development Evaluation Process
(Alternative 1) of the Upper Great Plains Wind Energy Final
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Final PEIS) (DOE/EIS-
0408), published in the Federal Register on May 1, 2015 (80 FR 24914).
In response to an increase in wind energy development 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, the Service (Service) and the Western Area Power Administration
(Western) have prepared the Upper Great Plains Wind Energy Final PEIS
to streamline 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 UGP Region.
The Service and Western cooperatively prepared the PEIS to (1)
assess the potential environmental impacts associated with wind energy
projects within the UGP Region that may propose placement of project
elements on grassland or wetland easements managed by the Service, or
that may interconnect to Western's transmission system, 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. Four alternatives, including the No Action
alternative, were analyzed in the PEIS.
The PEIS analyzes, to the extent practicable, the impacts resulting
from development of wind energy projects and the effectiveness of best
management practices (BMPs), 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 impacts resulting from constructing and operating these
types of wind energy infrastructure are well known from existing wind
energy projects.
In addition to the PEIS, the Service and Western engaged in
informal consultation under Section 7 of the ESA in support of the PEIS
process. A programmatic biological assessment (Programmatic BA) has
been 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 consultations under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
(54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq.). Since section 106 consultations are highly
site-specific, it was determined that effective consultation could be
accomplished only 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.
EPA's Role in the EIS Process
The EPA is charged under section 309 of the Clean Air Act to review
all Federal agencies' environmental impact statements (EISs) and to
comment on the adequacy and the acceptability of the environmental
impacts of proposed actions in the EISs.
EPA also serves as the repository (EIS database) for EISs prepared
by Federal agencies and provides notice of their availability in the
Federal Register. The EIS Database provides information about EISs
prepared by Federal agencies, as well as EPA's comments concerning the
EISs. All EISs are filed with EPA, which publishes a notice of
availability each Friday in the Federal Register. For more information,
see http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.You may search for
EPA comments on EISs, along with EISs themselves, at https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.
Purpose and Need
The Service's purpose and need for Federal action, as presented in
the Draft and Final PEIS, is to streamline the environmental review
process for wind energy projects that would unavoidably impact
grassland or wetland easements administered by the Service and would
therefore require an easement exchange to accommodate wind energy
development.
[[Page 44325]]
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, the Service would continue to
consider requests for easement exchanges to accommodate wind energy
project 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, section 7, and section 106 reviews
performed for each specific project.
Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative)--Programmatic Regional Wind
Energy Development Evaluation Process for Western and the Service
The Service has decided to adopt a Programmatic Regional Wind
Energy Development Process to address requests for Service easement
exchanges to accommodate wind energy development. Under Alternative 1,
the Service will adopt a standardized structured process for collecting
information and evaluating and reviewing environmental impacts of wind
energy 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 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 impacts 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 impacts, based on the
project description and site location, then a tiered EIS process would
be initiated.
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: Programmatic Regional Wind Energy Development Evaluation
Process for Western and No Wind Energy Development Allowed on USFWS
Easements
Alternative 2 would not allow easement exchanges to accommodate
wind energy facilities.
Alternative 3: Regional Wind Energy Development Evaluation Process for
Western and the USFWS, With No Programmatic Requirements
In essence, Alternative 3 is a minimalist approach that would
incorporate all mandated environmental review requirements, but would
not extend beyond them. Easement exchanges would occur for wind energy
projects as presented by developers without consideration of best
management practice and other issues to limit environmental impacts.
Decision
The Service 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 the Service's decision to
implement Alternative 1, and use the program defined by that
alternative for all applicable future wind energy project affecting
Service easements in the UGP Region. This decision is based on the
information contained in the Upper Great Plains Wind Energy Final PEIS.
The ROD was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the CEQ
regulations for implementing NEPA at 42 U.S.C. 1505.2 and the
Department of the Interior's implementing regulations in part 46 of
title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations (43 CFR 46.205, 46.210, and
46.215).
Matt Hogan,
Deputy Regional Director, Mountain-Prairie Region, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-16078 Filed 7-6-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P