81 FR 44324 - Upper Great Plains Wind Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement; Record of Decision
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 130 (July 7, 2016)
Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 130 (July 7, 2016)
| Page Range | 44324-44325 | |
| FR Document | 2016-16078 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 130 (Thursday, July 7, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 44324-44325] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [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
![44324 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2016 / Notices
information from public review, we decision to implement the In addition to the PEIS, the Service
cannot guarantee that we will be able to Programmatic Regional Wind Energy and Western engaged in informal
do so. Development Evaluation Process consultation under Section 7 of the ESA
(Alternative 1) of the Upper Great Plains in support of the PEIS process. A
Authority
Wind Energy Final Programmatic programmatic biological assessment
We provide this notice under Section Environmental Impact Statement (Final (Programmatic BA) has been prepared
10 of the Act and NEPA regulations (40 PEIS) (DOE/EIS–0408), published in the for listed and candidate species
CFR 1506.6). Federal Register on May 1, 2015 (80 FR occurring in the UGP Region.
Dated: June 29, 2016. 24914). Development of the Programmatic BA
Jay B. Herrington, In response to an increase in wind was closely coordinated with the
Field Supervisor, Jacksonville Field Office, energy development in the Upper Great Service’s North Dakota Ecological
Southeast Region. Plains Region (UGP Region), which Services Field Office. That office issued
[FR Doc. 2016–16079 Filed 7–6–16; 8:45 am] encompasses all or parts of the States of a letter of concurrence with the
Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Programmatic BA on July 7, 2015, as a
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
North Dakota, and South Dakota, the result of this consultation.
Service (Service) and the Western Area The agencies also investigated a
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Power Administration (Western) have programmatic approach to section 106
prepared the Upper Great Plains Wind consultations under the National
Fish and Wildlife Service Energy Final PEIS to streamline their Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (54
procedures for conducting U.S.C. 300101 et seq.). Since section 106
[FWS–R6–R–2016–N045;
FXRS12610600000–167–FF06R00000] environmental reviews of wind energy consultations are highly site-specific, it
applications by implementing was determined that effective
Upper Great Plains Wind Energy standardized evaluation procedures and consultation could be accomplished
Programmatic Environmental Impact identifying measures to address only once an individual project location
Statement; Record of Decision potential environmental impacts was defined. However, general
associated with wind energy projects in avoidance and protection measures for
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, the UGP Region. cultural resources and historic
Interior. The Service and Western properties that would be implemented
ACTION: Notice of availability. cooperatively prepared the PEIS to (1) were identified and included in the
assess the potential environmental analysis.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife impacts associated with wind energy
Service (Service) and the Western Area EPA’s Role in the EIS Process
projects within the UGP Region that
Power Administration (Western), as may propose placement of project The EPA is charged under section 309
joint lead agencies, issued the Upper elements on grassland or wetland of the Clean Air Act to review all
Great Plains Wind Energy Final easements managed by the Service, or Federal agencies’ environmental impact
Programmatic Environmental Impact that may interconnect to Western’s statements (EISs) and to comment on
Statement (Final PEIS) on May 1, 2015. transmission system, and (2) evaluate the adequacy and the acceptability of
The Service has decided to implement how environmental impacts would the environmental impacts of proposed
Alternative 1, as described in the Final differ under alternative sets of actions in the EISs.
PEIS and summarized in the Record of environmental evaluation procedures, EPA also serves as the repository (EIS
Decision (ROD). Alternative 1 was best management practices, avoidance database) for EISs prepared by Federal
identified as both the agency-preferred strategies, and mitigation measures that agencies and provides notice of their
alternative and the environmentally the agencies would request project availability in the Federal Register. The
preferred alternative. developers to implement, as EIS Database provides information
ADDRESSES: You may request copies of appropriate, for specific wind energy about EISs prepared by Federal
the Final PEIS and ROD, or more projects. Four alternatives, including the agencies, as well as EPA’s comments
information, by one of the following No Action alternative, were analyzed in concerning the EISs. All EISs are filed
methods. the PEIS. with EPA, which publishes a notice of
Web site: http:// The PEIS analyzes, to the extent availability each Friday in the Federal
plainswindeis.anl.gov/. practicable, the impacts resulting from Register. For more information, see
U.S. Mail: Kelly Hogan, U.S. Fish and development of wind energy projects http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/
Wildlife Service, Region 6, P.O. Box and the effectiveness of best eisdata.html.You may search for EPA
25486, Denver, CO 80225–0486. management practices (BMPs), comments on EISs, along with EISs
To view comments on the final PEIS avoidance of sensitive areas, and themselves, at https://
from the Environmental Protection mitigation measures in reducing cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/
Agency (EPA), or for information on potential impacts. Impacts and action/eis/search.
EPA’s role in the EIS process, see EPA’s mitigation have been analyzed for each
Role in the EIS Process under Purpose and Need
environmental resource, and all
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. components of wind energy projects The Service’s purpose and need for
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: have been addressed, including Federal action, as presented in the Draft
Kelly Hogan, 303–236–4355 (phone) or turbines, transformers, collector lines, and Final PEIS, is to streamline the
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Kelly_Hogan@fws.gov (email). overhead lines, access roads, substation environmental review process for wind
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: installations, and operational and energy projects that would unavoidably
maintenance activities. Many of the impact grassland or wetland easements
Background impacts resulting from constructing and administered by the Service and would
The Record of Decision (ROD) we operating these types of wind energy therefore require an easement exchange
announce today documents the U.S. infrastructure are well known from to accommodate wind energy
Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) existing wind energy projects. development.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Jul 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM 07JYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_44454/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2016 / Notices 44325
Alternatives EIS process. It is anticipated that the incorporate all mandated environmental
Four alternatives, including the No tiered NEPA document in most review requirements, but would not
Action Alternative, were analyzed in the instances will be an EA. If there extend beyond them. Easement
PEIS and are briefly described below. appeared to be a potential for new exchanges would occur for wind energy
More detailed information on the significant environmental impacts, projects as presented by developers
based on the project description and site without consideration of best
alternatives may be found in the Final
location, then a tiered EIS process management practice and other issues to
PEIS, which can be accessed from the
would be initiated. limit environmental impacts.
Web site provided above. Project-specific ESA Section 7
No Action Alternative consultations would utilize the Decision
Programmatic BA so long as the The Service has determined that
Under the No Action Alternative, the
applicable best management practices, Alternative 1, the agency-preferred
Service would continue to consider
minimization measures, mitigation alternative, best meets the agency’s
requests for easement exchanges to
measures, and monitoring requirements needs. Alternative 1 is also the
accommodate wind energy project
established in the Programmatic BA environmentally preferred alternative,
requests under the procedures currently
were implemented. Project proponents and would afford the greatest protection
used to evaluate and address the
who could not agree to the requirements for environmental resources that would
environmental impacts associated with
in the Programmatic BA would be be impacted by future wind energy
wind energy projects. Requests would required to conduct a separate ESA
be processed, reviewed, and evaluated projects. Therefore, it is the Service’s
Section 7 consultation with the Service. decision to implement Alternative 1,
on a case-by-case basis, including NHPA section 106 and related tribal
separate NEPA, section 7, and section and use the program defined by that
consultation would continue unchanged alternative for all applicable future wind
106 reviews performed for each specific from the present practices; since
project. energy project affecting Service
cultural resources issues are very site easements in the UGP Region. This
Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative)— specific, it was not possible to address decision is based on the information
Programmatic Regional Wind Energy them programmatically beyond contained in the Upper Great Plains
Development Evaluation Process for including general avoidance and Wind Energy Final PEIS. The ROD was
Western and the Service protection measures and committing to prepared pursuant to the requirements
the established processes and of the CEQ regulations for implementing
The Service has decided to adopt a procedures. The primary objective of
Programmatic Regional Wind Energy NEPA at 42 U.S.C. 1505.2 and the
Alternative 1 was to collect relevant Department of the Interior’s
Development Process to address natural resources information; evaluate
requests for Service easement exchanges implementing regulations in part 46 of
the typical impacts of wind energy title 43 of the Code of Federal
to accommodate wind energy projects and associated facilities on
development. Under Alternative 1, the Regulations (43 CFR 46.205, 46.210, and
those resources; identify effective best 46.215).
Service will adopt a standardized management practices, minimization
structured process for collecting measures, and mitigation measures that Matt Hogan,
information and evaluating and could reduce impacts; provide Deputy Regional Director, Mountain-Prairie
reviewing environmental impacts of information about areas that would be Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
wind energy requests. Best management more sensitive to development impacts [FR Doc. 2016–16078 Filed 7–6–16; 8:45 am]
practices and mitigation measures and encourage avoidance of siting BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
developed in the PEIS programmatic projects in these areas; and have all this
process would be employed to minimize material available to support site-
the potential environmental impacts of specific tiered environmental reviews. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
wind energy projects. Project-specific The parallel Programmatic BA would
NEPA analyses, either environmental similarly expedite the ESA section 7 Bureau of Land Management
assessments (EAs) or streamlined EISs, consultation by having previously [16X LLIDB00100.LF1000000.HT0000.
would tier off (eliminate repetitive established minimization measures, LXSS024D0000.241A00]
discussions of the same issues) the mitigation measures, and monitoring
analyses in the Final PEIS as long as the requirements, by species, that if Notice of Public Meeting: Resource
appropriate identified conservation committed to and implemented would Advisory Council (RAC) to the Boise
measures were implemented as part of constitute compliance with ESA section District, Bureau of Land Management,
proposed projects. In accordance with 7 without a separate consultation. U.S. Department of the Interior
40 CFR 1502.20, these project-specific
NEPA documents would summarize the Alternative 2: Programmatic Regional AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,
information and issues covered in the Wind Energy Development Evaluation U.S. Department of the Interior.
Final PEIS or incorporate relevant Process for Western and No Wind ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
discussions by reference. This approach Energy Development Allowed on
would allow for more efficient NEPA USFWS Easements SUMMARY: In accordance with the
documents that would properly focus Alternative 2 would not allow Federal Land Policy and Management
on local or site-specific issues. The easement exchanges to accommodate Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory
decision to pursue a tiered EA or EIS Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S.
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
wind energy facilities.
would be made similar to any other Department of the Interior, Bureau of
proposal. If the potential for new Alternative 3: Regional Wind Energy Land Management (BLM) Boise District
significant impacts appeared low, then Development Evaluation Process for Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will
an EA process could be initiated, with Western and the USFWS, With No hold a meeting as indicated below.
the understanding that the identification Programmatic Requirements DATES: The meeting will be held August
of any potentially new significant In essence, Alternative 3 is a 3, 2016, at the Boise District Office,
impact would require transition to an minimalist approach that would 3948 Development Avenue, Boise, Idaho
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Jul 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM 07JYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_44454/page/2.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-08 07:54:40
Document Modified: 2018-02-08 07:54:40
| 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 | Notice of availability. | |
| Contact | Kelly Hogan, 303-236-4355 (phone) or [email protected] (email). | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 44324 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR