80 FR 51800 - Record of Decision for Upper Great Plains Wind Energy Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0408)
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Western Area Power Administration Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 165 (August 26, 2015)
Western Area Power Administration
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 165 (August 26, 2015)
| Page Range | 51800-51802 | |
| FR Document | 2015-21131 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 165 (Wednesday, August 26, 2015)] [Notices] [Pages 51800-51802] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [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
![51800 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 165 / Wednesday, August 26, 2015 / Notices
docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Western and mitigation measures in reducing
other information, call (866) 208–3676 and the Service, as joint lead agencies, potential impacts. Impacts and
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. prepared the Upper Great Plains Wind mitigation have been analyzed for each
Dated: August 19, 2015. Energy Draft and Final PEIS (DOE/EIS– environmental resource, and all
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
0408), the Final PEIS being issued May components of wind energy projects
1, 2015 (80 FR 24915), in response to an have been addressed, including
Deputy Secretary.
increase in wind energy development turbines, transformers, collector lines,
[FR Doc. 2015–21110 Filed 8–25–15; 8:45 am] and interconnection requests. Western overhead lines, access roads, substation
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P and the Service have interests in installations, and operational and
streamlining their procedures for maintenance activities. Many of the
conducting environmental reviews of potential impacts resulting from
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY wind energy applications by constructing and operating these types
Western Area Power Administration implementing standardized evaluation of wind energy infrastructure are well
procedures and identifying measures to known from existing wind energy
Record of Decision for Upper Great address potential environmental generation projects. The environmental
Plains Wind Energy Final impacts associated with wind energy procedures and mitigation strategies
Programmatic Environmental Impact projects in the Upper Great Plains developed have been structured to be
Statement (DOE/EIS–0408) Region (UGP Region), which consistent with Western’s Open Access
encompasses all or parts of the states of Transmission Service Tariff and
AGENCY: Western Area Power Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.’s (SPP)
Administration, DOE. North Dakota, and South Dakota. Since Open Access Transmission Tariff, both
ACTION: Record of Decision. formalizing the process and procedures of which include environmental review
for environmental reviews would be provisions.1
SUMMARY: The Western Area Power Federal actions, Western and the In addition to the PEIS, Western and
Administration (Western) and the U.S. Service prepared the PEIS in accordance the Service engaged in informal
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), as with the National Environmental Policy consultation under Section 7 of the
joint lead agencies, issued the Upper Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321– ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1536, in support of the
Great Plains Wind Energy Final 4347), as amended, and the Council on PEIS process. A programmatic biological
Programmatic Environmental Impact Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA assessment (Programmatic BA) was
Statement (Final PEIS) (DOE/EIS–0408) regulations (40 CFR parts 1500–1508). prepared for listed and candidate
on May 1, 2015. Western has decided to The Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of species occurring in the UGP Region.
implement Alternative 1 as described in Indian Affairs, and the Rural Utilities Development of the Programmatic BA
the Final PEIS and summarized in this Service have participated in the was closely coordinated with the
Record of Decision (ROD). Alternative 1 development of the PEIS as cooperating Service’s North Dakota Ecological
was identified as both the agency agencies. Services Field Office. That office issued
preferred alternative and the Western and the Service have a letter of concurrence with the
environmentally preferred alternative. cooperatively prepared the PEIS to: (1) Programmatic BA on July 7, 2015, as a
Assess the potential environmental result of this consultation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
impacts associated with wind energy The agencies also investigated a
information on Western’s proposed projects within the UGP Region that
programmatic environmental evaluation programmatic approach to Section 106
may interconnect to Western’s
procedures for wind energy project consultation under the National Historic
transmission system, or that may
interconnections and general Preservation Act (NHPA), 54 U.S.C.
propose placement of project elements
information about interconnections with 306108. Since Section 106 consultation
on grassland or wetland easements
Western’s transmission system, contact is highly site-specific, it was determined
managed by the Service; and (2)
Matt Marsh, Regional Environmental that effective consultation could only be
evaluate how environmental impacts
Manager, Upper Great Plains Customer accomplished once an individual
would differ under alternative sets of
Service Region, Western Area Power project location was defined. However,
environmental evaluation procedures,
Administration, P.O. Box 35800, general avoidance and protection
best management practices, avoidance
Billings, MT 59107–5800, telephone strategies, and mitigation measures that measures for cultural resources and
(406) 255–2810, email mmarsh@ the agencies would request project historic properties that would be
wapa.gov. The Final PEIS, this ROD, developers to implement, as implemented were identified and
and other project documents are appropriate, for specific wind energy included in the analysis.
available for review on Western’s Web projects. Purpose and Need
site at https://www.wapa.gov/regions/ The objective of the PEIS is to
UGP/Environment/Pages/ugp-nepa.aspx proactively strengthen and streamline Western’s purpose and need for
and the project Web site at http:// the environmental review process by Federal action was presented in the
plainswindeis.anl.gov. having already analyzed and addressed Draft and Final PEIS: Western needs to
For general information on the U.S. general environmental concerns while streamline the environmental review
Department of Energy (DOE) National specifically providing for Endangered process for wind energy project
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et interconnection requests to help
process, please contact Carol M. seq.) compliance for wind development
rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
1 Western’s UGP Region has signed a membership
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA projects that incorporate design agreement with SPP with a target date of
Policy and Compliance (GC–54), U.S. elements to reduce impacts. The PEIS transferring the functional control of its facilities in
Department of Energy, 1000 analyzes, to the extent practicable, the the eastern interconnection to SPP on October 1,
Independence Avenue SW., impacts resulting from development of 2015. Thereafter interconnection requests would be
pursuant to the SPP tariff. Revisions to the SPP
Washington, DC 20585, telephone (202) wind energy projects and the tariff incorporate Western’s requirement that it will
586–4600 or (800) 472–2756, email effectiveness of best management still perform NEPA reviews on interconnections
askNEPA@hq.doe.gov. practices, avoidance of sensitive areas, associated with its facilities.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:29 Aug 25, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM 26AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_51965/page/1.svg)
![51802 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 165 / Wednesday, August 26, 2015 / Notices
energy project interconnection requests permitting their use under 40 CFR part conversion is to be permanent, the
in the UGP Region.2 58 by States and other agencies for original designation equivalent method
This decision is based on the determining compliance with the label should be removed from the
information contained in the Upper NAAQSs. sampler and replaced with the new
Great Plains Wind Energy Final PEIS. The EPA hereby announces the designated equivalent method label.
This ROD was prepared pursuant to the designation of two new equivalent The application for equivalent
requirements of the CEQ Regulations for methods for measuring pollutant method determination for the PM2.5
Implementing NEPA § 1505.2 and DOE’s concentrations in the ambient air: One method was received by the Office of
NEPA implementing procedures, 10 for PM2.5 and one for ozone. These Research and Development on June 18,
CFR 1021 et seq. designations are made under the 2015. This monitor is commercially
Dated: August 17, 2015.
provisions of 40 CFR part 53, as available from the applicant, Met One
amended on August 31, 2011 (76 FR Instruments, Inc., 1600 Washington
Mark A. Gabriel,
54326–54341). Blvd., Grants Pass, OR 97526.
Administrator. The new PM2.5 Class III equivalent The new Ozone equivalent method is
[FR Doc. 2015–21131 Filed 8–25–15; 8:45 am] method is nearly identical to a an automated monitoring method
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P corresponding Met One sampler (analyzer) utilizing a measurement
(EQPM–1013–209) that had been principle based on based on non-
previously designated by EPA as an dispersive ultraviolet absorption
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION equivalent method sampler for PM2.5. photometry. The newly designated
AGENCY The significant difference is that the equivalent method is identified as
newly designated PM2.5 equivalent follows:
[FRL–9933–10–ORD]
method sampler is configured to use an
EQOA–0815–227, ‘‘2B Technologies
Office of Research and Development; URG–2000–30EGN PM2.5 as the
Model Personal Ozone Monitor (POM),’’
Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and principle size separator (fractionator) for
operated in a range of 0–0.5 ppm in an
the sampler rather than the WINS
Equivalent Methods: Designation of a environment of 20–30 °C, temperature
Two New Equivalent Methods impactor or the BGI VSCCTM used in the
and pressure compensation, using a 10
corresponding PM2.5 equivalent method
second averaging time, with a 12V DC
AGENCY: Environmental Protection sampler. The newly designated Class III
source supplied by a 100–240V AC
Agency, (EPA). equivalent method is identified as
power adapter, operated according to
ACTION: Notice of designation of two follows:
EQPM–0715–266, Met One the POM Operation Manual and with or
new equivalent methods for monitoring without the following: Cigarette lighter
ambient air quality. Instruments, Inc. BAM–1020 Beta
Attenuation Mass Monitor—PM2.5 FEM adapter or a 12V DC battery or a 7–24
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Configuration,’’ configured for 24 1-hour V battery for portable operation, USB
the Environmental Protection Agency average measurements of PM2.5 by beta data port with computer cable.
(EPA) has designated, in accordance attenuation, using a glass fiber filter tape The application for equivalent
with 40 CFR part 53, two new roll (460130 or 460180) and a sample method determination for the ozone
equivalent methods: one for measuring flow rate of 16.67 liters/min and with method was received by the Office of
concentrations of PM2.5 and one for the standard (BX–802) EPA PM10 inlet Research and Development on
measuring concentrations of ozone (O3) (meeting 40 CFR 50 Appendix L September 18, 2013. This analyzer is
in the ambient air. specifications) and with an URG–2000– commercially available from the
30EGN PM2.5 (BX–809) cyclonic applicant, 2B Technology, Inc., 2100
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
separator, BX–596 combo T/RH sensor, Central Ave., Suite 105, Boulder, CO
Robert Vanderpool, Human Exposure
BX–827(110V) or BX–830(230V). 80303.
and Atmospheric Sciences Division
Instrument must be operated in Test monitors representative of these
(MD–D205–03), National Exposure
accordance with the BAM 1020 methods have been tested in accordance
Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA,
Particulate Monitor operation manual, with the applicable test procedures
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
revision k or later. This PM2.5 equivalent specified in 40 CFR part 53, as amended
27711. Email: Vanderpool.Robert@
method designation only applies to the on August 31, 2011. After reviewing the
epa.gov.
BAM–1020 configured with the URG– results of those tests and other
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 2000–30EGN cyclone. information submitted in the
accordance with regulations at 40 CFR In the particular case of the new Met application, EPA has determined, in
part 53, the EPA evaluates various One Class III PM2.5 equivalent method, accordance with part 53, that these
methods for monitoring the a corresponding Met One PM2.5 methods should be designated as
concentrations of those ambient air equivalent method sampler (RFPS– equivalent methods.
pollutants for which EPA has 1013–209) may be converted to the As designated equivalent methods,
established National Ambient Air equivalent method configuration by these methods are acceptable for use by
Quality Standards (NAAQSs), as set replacement of the WINS impactor or states and other air monitoring agencies
forth in 40 CFR part 50. Monitoring the VSCCTM cyclone with the URG– under the requirements of 40 CFR part
methods that are determined to meet 2000–30EGN cyclone specified in the 58, Ambient Air Quality Surveillance.
specific requirements for adequacy are equivalent method description. The For such purposes, the method must be
designated by the EPA as either URG–2000–30EGN cyclone should be used in strict accordance with the
rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
reference methods or equivalent purchased from the sampler operation or instruction manual
methods (as applicable), thereby manufacturer, who will also furnish associated with the method and subject
installation, conversion, operation, and to any specifications and limitations
2 On November 16, 2011, DOE’s Acting General
maintenance instructions for the URG– (e.g., configuration or operational
Counsel restated the delegation to Western’s
Administrator of all the authorities of the General
2000–30EGN cyclone, as well as a new settings) specified in the applicable
Counsel with respect to environmental impact equivalent method identification label designated method descriptions (see the
statements. to be placed on the sampler. If the identification of the methods above).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:29 Aug 25, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM 26AUN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_51965/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-15 10:58:22
Document Modified: 2015-12-15 10:58:22
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Record of Decision. | |
| 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. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 51800 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR