Record of Decision for the Cape Wind Energy Project; Secretary of the Interior's Response to Comments From the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation on the Cape Wind Energy Project, 34152-34154 [2010-14528]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
34152
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Notices
interpretation. We will review and
update the CCP at least every 15 years
in accordance with the Administration
Act.
Our Draft CCP and Environmental
Assessment (EA) were available for a 45day public review and comment period,
which we announced via several
methods, including press releases,
updates to constituents, and a Federal
Register notice (74 FR 28271, June 15,
2009). The Draft CCP/EA identified and
evaluated four alternatives for managing
the Refuge for the next 15 years.
Alternative A was the no-action
alternative, which described current
Refuge management activities.
Alternative B placed greater emphasis
on biological resources than on visitor
services. Alternative C (the selected
alternative) provided an optimal balance
of improved biological resource
objectives and expanded visitor services
opportunities. Alternative D placed
greater emphasis on visitor services than
on biological resources.
We received 82 comment letters on
the Draft CCP and EA during the review
period. We incorporated these received
comments into the CCP when possible,
and we responded to the comments in
an appendix to the CCP. In the FONSI,
we selected Alternative C, the basis for
the CCP, for implementation. The
FONSI documents our decision and is
based on the information and analysis
contained in the EA.
Under the selected alternative, the
Refuges will achieve an optimal balance
of biological resource objectives and
visitor services opportunities. Habitat
management and associated biological
resource monitoring will be improved.
Visitor service opportunities will focus
on quality wildlife-dependent recreation
distributed throughout the Refuge.
Waterskiing on the Refuge-owned
portion of Dorris Reservoir will be
prohibited. In addition, environmental
education, interpretation, wildlife
observation, photography, fishing, and
hunting programs will be improved
and/or expanded.
The selected alternative best meets
the Refuge’s purposes, vision, and goals;
contributes to the Refuge System
mission; addresses the significant issues
and relevant mandates; and is consistent
with principles of sound fish and
wildlife management.
Public Availability of Documents
In addition to the methods in
you can view or obtain
documents at the following locations:
• Our Web site: https://www.fws.gov/
modoc.
• Public Libraries: during regular
library hours, at the following libraries:
ADDRESSES,
Library
Address
Modoc County Library ..............................................................................
Cedarville Branch Library .........................................................................
USFWS–NCTC Library .............................................................................
Dated: June 8, 2010.
Ren Lohoefener,
Regional Director, Pacific Southwest Region,
Sacramento, California.
[FR Doc. 2010–14439 Filed 6–15–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[LLAK9100000–L131000000.PP0000–
L.X.SS.052L0000]
Notice of Public Meeting, BLM Alaska
Resource Advisory Council
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY: Alaska State Office, Bureau of
Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: In accordance with the
Federal Land Policy and Management
Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory
Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) Alaska
Resource Advisory Council will meet as
indicated below:
DATES: The Alaska Resource Advisory
Council will conduct a field trip within
the Glennallen, Alaska, area from
August 3–5, 2010, which includes a
public meeting on Tuesday, August 3, at
the BLM Glennallen Field Office at Mile
Post 186.5 Glenn Highway, Glennallen,
Alaska beginning at 2 p.m. The meeting
will include discussions on resource
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:51 Jun 15, 2010
Jkt 220001
212 West Third Street, Alturas, CA 96101.
460 Main Street, Cedarville, CA 96104.
698 Conservation Way, Shepherdstown, WV 25443.
management and planning issues
followed by a public comment period
beginning at 4 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ruth McCoard, Alaska State Office, 222
W. 7th Avenue #13, Anchorage, AK
99513. Telephone (907) 271–4418 or email rmccoard@blm.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 15member Council advises the Secretary
of the Interior, through the Bureau of
Land Management, on a variety of
planning and management issues
associated with public land
management in Alaska. When making
public comment, participants should
know that their address, phone number,
e-mail address, or other personal
identifying information in their
comment, along with their entire
comment may be made publicly
available at any time. Participants can
ask that personal identifying
information be withheld from their
comments but this cannot be
guaranteed.
All meetings are open to the public.
The public may present written
comments to the Council. Each formal
Council meeting will also have time
allotted for hearing public comments.
Depending on the number of people
wishing to comment and time available,
the time for individual oral comments
may be limited. Individuals who plan to
attend and need special assistance, such
as sign language interpretation,
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
transportation, or other reasonable
accommodations, should contact the
BLM.
Dated: June 9, 2010.
Julia Dougan,
Acting State Director.
[FR Doc. 2010–14484 Filed 6–15–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–JA–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Minerals Management Service (MMS)
Record of Decision for the Cape Wind
Energy Project; Secretary of the
Interior’s Response to Comments
From the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation on the Cape Wind Energy
Project
AGENCY: Minerals Management Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Availability (NOA) of
the Record of Decision (ROD) and
Notice to the Public of the Secretary of
the Interior’s Response to Comments
From the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP).
SUMMARY: In accordance with the
regulations implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), the MMS is announcing the
availability of the ROD for the Cape
Wind Energy Project (the Project). The
ROD for the Project records the
decisions that the MMS reached to
E:\FR\FM\16JNN1.SGM
16JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Notices
select the Preferred Alternative at
Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound
described in its Final Environmental
Impact Statement (January 2009). After
careful consideration of all the concerns
expressed during the lengthy review
and consultation process and thorough
analyses of the many factors involved,
the Secretary approved the ROD finding
that the public benefits weigh in favor
of approving the Cape Wind Project at
the Horseshoe Shoal location. The MMS
will offer a commercial lease to Cape
Wind Associates, LLC (CWA) in
response to CWA’s application. The
CWA’s rights to construct and operate
the Project pursuant to the lease are
subject to construction and operation
approvals from the MMS. The Secretary
of the Interior (the Secretary) and the
Director of the MMS co-signed the ROD
for the Project on April 28, 2010.
In accordance with the regulations
implementing Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of
1966 (NHPA), the public is also notified
that on April 28, 2010, the Secretary
responded to the April 2, 2010,
comments of the ACHP concerning the
Project. The ACHP provided comments
to the Secretary following his
termination of the Section 106
consultation on March 1, 2010. The
Secretary’s response explains his
decision and indicates how the ACHP’s
comments were taken into account in
his consideration of the effects of the
project on historical and cultural
resources. The Secretary provides a
detailed response for each of the
ACHP’s comments and
recommendations.
Authority: The NOA of the ROD is
published pursuant to the regulations at 40
CFR 1506.6, implementing the provisions of
NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The Notice to
the Public of the Secretary of the Interior’s
Response to the ACHP is published pursuant
to the regulations at 36 CFR 800.7(c)(4)(iii),
implementing the provisions of NHPA (16
U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Cape Wind Energy Project Description
Following the passage of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) and
amendments to the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), the
Department of the Interior (the
Department) was given statutory
authority to issue leases, easements, or
rights-of-way for renewable energy
projects on the Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS). The Secretary delegated this
authority to the MMS. Subsequent to the
enactment of EPAct, the MMS finalized
regulations to process and permit
offshore renewable energy projects in
2009. The CWA submitted an
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:19 Jun 15, 2010
Jkt 220001
application to the MMS in 2005, prior
to the promulgation of those regulations,
to construct, operate, and eventually
decommission an offshore wind power
facility on Horseshoe Shoal in
Nantucket Sound, offshore of
Massachusetts.
The Project will be located completely
on the OCS, except for transmission
cables which will pass through
Massachusetts’ territory. The project
calls for 130 3.6 megawatt wind turbine
generators, each with a maximum blade
height of 440 feet, to be arranged in a
grid pattern in approximately 25 square
miles of Nantucket Sound. With a
maximum electric output of 468
megawatts and an average anticipated
output of 182 megawatts, the facility is
projected to generate up to threequarters of the Cape and nearby islands’
electricity needs. Each of the 130 wind
turbine generators will generate
electricity independently. Solid
dielectric submarine inner-array cables
from each wind turbine generator will
interconnect within the array and
terminate on an electrical service
platform, which will serve as the
common interconnection point for all of
the wind turbines. The submarine
transmission cable system from the
electric service platform to the landfall
location in Yarmouth will be
approximately 12.5 miles in length (7.6
miles of which will fall within
Massachusetts’ territory).
Record of Decision
The decision to offer a commercial
lease is based on the comprehensive
environmental evaluation presented in
the Final Cape Wind Energy Project
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
The FEIS assessed the physical,
biological, and socioeconomic impacts
of the proposed project and 13
alternatives, including a no-action
alternative. Since the FEIS was
published in January 2009, the MMS
prepared an Environmental Assessment
(April 2010) to evaluate whether the
MMS needed to supplement the FEIS
based on new information pertaining to
the project. The MMS determined that
there was no new information that
necessitated a reanalysis of the range of
the alternatives or the kinds, levels, or
locations of the impacts of the project
and that the analyses, potential impacts,
and conclusions detailed in the FEIS
were still valid. The MMS concluded
that a supplemental EIS was not
required.
The ROD summarizes the alternatives
considered, the decision, the basis for
the decision, the environmentally
preferable alternative, adopted
mitigation measures, and bureau
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
34153
undertakings to involve the public,
other Federal and state agencies, and
affected Indian tribes. The ROD
discusses the Secretary and MMS’s
careful balancing of the need to
diversify the Nation’s energy portfolio,
advance energy independence, combat
climate change, and create jobs with the
need to protect and preserve the rich
environmental and cultural resources in
Nantucket Sound. The ROD identifies
and adopts a suite of mitigation
measures and monitoring requirements
deemed practicable to avoid or
minimize the environmental harm that
could result from the project.
Prior to construction and commercial
operation of facilities, CWA must
submit, and obtain the MMS’s approval
of, its Construction and Operations Plan
(COP). The MMS reserves the right to
approve, disapprove, or approve with
modifications the COP, pursuant to the
Renewable Energy Final Rule and other
applicable regulations.
Secretary of the Interior’s Response to
the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP)
The ACHP provided comments and
recommendations to the Secretary
concerning the potential adverse effects
of the Project, following the Secretary’s
decision to terminate Section 106
consultations. In its comments and
recommendations, the ACHP indicated
that the effects on historic properties
and cultural resources from the Project
would be direct and indirect, could not
be avoided, and could not be
satisfactorily mitigated. The ACHP
reached this conclusion based on its
finding that the project would adversely
affect the viewsheds of 34 historic and/
or traditional cultural properties in the
area and potentially adversely affect
other cultural resources located on the
seafloor or buried in the Nantucket
Sound. Regulations at 36 CFR
800.7(c)(4), implementing Section 106
of the NHPA, require the Secretary to
prepare a response to the ACHP and
make that response available to the
public. The Secretary’s response,
transmitted on April 28, 2010, describes
the Department and the MMS’s efforts to
identify, assess, avoid, and minimize
potential impacts on traditional cultural
resources and historic properties. The
Department and the MMS participated
in numerous Section 106 meetings with
consulting and interested parties, as
well as Government-to-Government
meetings with the Wampanoag Tribe of
Gay Head (Aquinnah) and the Mashpee
Wampanoag Tribe. The Department
complied with the Section 106 process
for the Project. The Secretary took into
E:\FR\FM\16JNN1.SGM
16JNN1
34154
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 16, 2010 / Notices
account the Council’s comments and
documented the decision.
The Secretary’s response provides a
detailed description of project design
changes and mitigation measures
adopted by the MMS, as well as other
Federal and state agencies to avoid and
minimize potential visual and bottomdisturbing impacts.
Availability of the ROD and Secretary’s
Response
To obtain a single printed copy of the
ROD or the Secretary’s Response to the
ACHP, you may contact the Minerals
Management Service, Office of Offshore
Alternative Energy Programs (Mail Stop
4080), 381 Elden Street, Herndon,
Virginia 20170. An electronic copy of
the ROD and Secretary’s Response is
available at the MMS’s Web site at:
https://www.doi.gov/news/doinews/
Secretary-Salazar-Announces-Approvalof-Cape-Wind-Energy-Project-on-OuterContinental-Shelf-offMassachusetts.cfm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Minerals Management Service, Ms.
Maureen Bornholdt, Office of Offshore
Alternative Energy Programs, 381 Elden
Street, Herndon, Virginia 20170, (703)
787–1300.
Dated: June 7, 2010.
Robert P. LaBelle,
Acting Associate Director for Offshore Energy
and Minerals Management.
[FR Doc. 2010–14528 Filed 6–15–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P
DATES: To ensure consideration, we
need to receive your written comments
by July 16, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
requests for more information, or
requests for copies of the DCCP/EA, by
any of the following methods.
E-mail:
FW1PlanningComments@fws.gov.
Include ‘‘Ridgefield NWR DCCP/EA’’ in
the subject line.
Fax: Attn: Bob Flores, Project Leader,
(360) 887–4109.
U.S. Mail: Bob Flores, Project Leader,
Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge,
P.O. Box 457, Ridgefield, WA 98642.
Web site: https://www.fws.gov/
ridgefieldrefuges/ridgefield; select
‘‘Contact Us.’’
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob
Flores, Project Leader, (360) 887–4106.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
The refuge encompasses 5,218 acres
along the lower Columbia River in Clark
County, WA. Habitat types on the refuge
include seasonal, semipermanent, and
permanent wetlands; floodplain forests;
managed pastures; croplands; and oak
woodlands. The refuge was established
to provide migration and wintering
habitat for dusky Canada geese and
other waterfowl. It also provides
important habitat for sandhill cranes,
waterbirds, migratory landbirds, and
raptors.
Background
The CCP Process
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R1–R–2010–N001; 1265–0000–10137–
S3]
Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge,
Clark County, WA
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability: Draft
comprehensive conservation plan and
environmental assessment; request for
comments.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
availability of our draft comprehensive
conservation plan and environmental
assessment (DCCP/EA) for the
Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge
(refuge), for public review and
comment. The DCCP/EA describes our
alternatives, including our preferred
alternative, for managing the refuge for
the 15 years following approval of the
final CCP.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:19 Jun 15, 2010
Jkt 220001
The National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C.
668dd–668ee) (Refuge Administration
Act), as amended by the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997, requires us to develop a
CCP for each national wildlife refuge.
The purpose for developing a CCP is to
provide refuge managers with a 15-year
plan for achieving refuge purposes and
contributing toward the mission of the
National Wildlife Refuge System,
consistent with sound principles of fish
and wildlife management, conservation,
legal mandates, and our policies. In
addition to outlining broad management
direction on conserving wildlife and
their habitats, CCPs identify wildlifedependent recreational opportunities
available to the public, including
opportunities for hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation and photography,
and environmental education and
interpretation. We will review and
update the CCP at least every 15 years
in accordance with the Refuge
Administration Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Public Outreach
We began public outreach by
publishing a Notice of Intent in the
Federal Register (71 FR 43787; August
2, 2006), announcing our intent to
complete a CCP/EA and inviting public
comments. In August 2006, we
distributed Planning Update 1 to our
mailing list and public outlets. On
September 14 and 20, 2006, we held
public scoping meetings in Ridgefield
and Vancouver, Washington,
respectively, to meet the public and
obtain comments. The meetings were
announced through local media outlets,
on the Refuge’s Web site, and in
Planning Update 1. In January 2007, we
distributed Planning Update 2, which
included a summary of the comments
we received, a planning schedule, and
a description of the CCP’s scope. In
March 2009, we distributed Planning
Update 3; in it we summarized our
preliminary draft alternatives, requested
public comments, and invited the
public to an open house. On March 26,
2009, we held an open house in
Ridgefield, Washington, to gather input
on the preliminary alternatives.
DCCP/EA Alternatives We Are
Considering
We identified and evaluated four
alternatives for managing the refuge,
including a No Action Alternative
(Alternative 1). Brief descriptions of the
alternatives follow.
Alternative 1 (No Action)
Under Alternative 1, the refuge would
continue to manage and where feasible
restore habitat for priority species,
including dusky Canada geese, other
Canada geese subspecies, cackling
geese, other waterfowl, and Federal and
State imperiled listed species. Hunting
would continue on the River ‘S’ Unit’s
760-acre hunt area. The 4.3-mile auto
tour route would remain open year
round in its current configuration. The
refuge would coordinate with its
Friends groups, local educators, and
Tribes to conduct environmental and
cultural education and interpretation
programs. This alternative is considered
the base from which to compare the
action alternatives.
Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative)
Under Alternative 2, our preferred
alternative, the refuge would continue
to protect, maintain, and where feasible,
restore habitat for priority species,
including dusky Canada geese, other
waterfowl, and Federal and State
imperiled listed species (e.g. sandhill
crane). Under this alternative the refuge
would maintain high-quality green
forage for geese in improved pastures
E:\FR\FM\16JNN1.SGM
16JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34152-34154]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-14528]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Minerals Management Service (MMS)
Record of Decision for the Cape Wind Energy Project; Secretary of
the Interior's Response to Comments From the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation on the Cape Wind Energy Project
AGENCY: Minerals Management Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Record of Decision (ROD)
and Notice to the Public of the Secretary of the Interior's Response to
Comments From the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the MMS is announcing the
availability of the ROD for the Cape Wind Energy Project (the Project).
The ROD for the Project records the decisions that the MMS reached to
[[Page 34153]]
select the Preferred Alternative at Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound
described in its Final Environmental Impact Statement (January 2009).
After careful consideration of all the concerns expressed during the
lengthy review and consultation process and thorough analyses of the
many factors involved, the Secretary approved the ROD finding that the
public benefits weigh in favor of approving the Cape Wind Project at
the Horseshoe Shoal location. The MMS will offer a commercial lease to
Cape Wind Associates, LLC (CWA) in response to CWA's application. The
CWA's rights to construct and operate the Project pursuant to the lease
are subject to construction and operation approvals from the MMS. The
Secretary of the Interior (the Secretary) and the Director of the MMS
co-signed the ROD for the Project on April 28, 2010.
In accordance with the regulations implementing Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), the public is also
notified that on April 28, 2010, the Secretary responded to the April
2, 2010, comments of the ACHP concerning the Project. The ACHP provided
comments to the Secretary following his termination of the Section 106
consultation on March 1, 2010. The Secretary's response explains his
decision and indicates how the ACHP's comments were taken into account
in his consideration of the effects of the project on historical and
cultural resources. The Secretary provides a detailed response for each
of the ACHP's comments and recommendations.
Authority: The NOA of the ROD is published pursuant to the
regulations at 40 CFR 1506.6, implementing the provisions of NEPA
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The Notice to the Public of the Secretary
of the Interior's Response to the ACHP is published pursuant to the
regulations at 36 CFR 800.7(c)(4)(iii), implementing the provisions
of NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Cape Wind Energy Project Description
Following the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) and
amendments to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), the
Department of the Interior (the Department) was given statutory
authority to issue leases, easements, or rights-of-way for renewable
energy projects on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The Secretary
delegated this authority to the MMS. Subsequent to the enactment of
EPAct, the MMS finalized regulations to process and permit offshore
renewable energy projects in 2009. The CWA submitted an application to
the MMS in 2005, prior to the promulgation of those regulations, to
construct, operate, and eventually decommission an offshore wind power
facility on Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound, offshore of
Massachusetts.
The Project will be located completely on the OCS, except for
transmission cables which will pass through Massachusetts' territory.
The project calls for 130 3.6 megawatt wind turbine generators, each
with a maximum blade height of 440 feet, to be arranged in a grid
pattern in approximately 25 square miles of Nantucket Sound. With a
maximum electric output of 468 megawatts and an average anticipated
output of 182 megawatts, the facility is projected to generate up to
three-quarters of the Cape and nearby islands' electricity needs. Each
of the 130 wind turbine generators will generate electricity
independently. Solid dielectric submarine inner-array cables from each
wind turbine generator will interconnect within the array and terminate
on an electrical service platform, which will serve as the common
interconnection point for all of the wind turbines. The submarine
transmission cable system from the electric service platform to the
landfall location in Yarmouth will be approximately 12.5 miles in
length (7.6 miles of which will fall within Massachusetts' territory).
Record of Decision
The decision to offer a commercial lease is based on the
comprehensive environmental evaluation presented in the Final Cape Wind
Energy Project Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The FEIS assessed
the physical, biological, and socioeconomic impacts of the proposed
project and 13 alternatives, including a no-action alternative. Since
the FEIS was published in January 2009, the MMS prepared an
Environmental Assessment (April 2010) to evaluate whether the MMS
needed to supplement the FEIS based on new information pertaining to
the project. The MMS determined that there was no new information that
necessitated a reanalysis of the range of the alternatives or the
kinds, levels, or locations of the impacts of the project and that the
analyses, potential impacts, and conclusions detailed in the FEIS were
still valid. The MMS concluded that a supplemental EIS was not
required.
The ROD summarizes the alternatives considered, the decision, the
basis for the decision, the environmentally preferable alternative,
adopted mitigation measures, and bureau undertakings to involve the
public, other Federal and state agencies, and affected Indian tribes.
The ROD discusses the Secretary and MMS's careful balancing of the need
to diversify the Nation's energy portfolio, advance energy
independence, combat climate change, and create jobs with the need to
protect and preserve the rich environmental and cultural resources in
Nantucket Sound. The ROD identifies and adopts a suite of mitigation
measures and monitoring requirements deemed practicable to avoid or
minimize the environmental harm that could result from the project.
Prior to construction and commercial operation of facilities, CWA
must submit, and obtain the MMS's approval of, its Construction and
Operations Plan (COP). The MMS reserves the right to approve,
disapprove, or approve with modifications the COP, pursuant to the
Renewable Energy Final Rule and other applicable regulations.
Secretary of the Interior's Response to the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation (ACHP)
The ACHP provided comments and recommendations to the Secretary
concerning the potential adverse effects of the Project, following the
Secretary's decision to terminate Section 106 consultations. In its
comments and recommendations, the ACHP indicated that the effects on
historic properties and cultural resources from the Project would be
direct and indirect, could not be avoided, and could not be
satisfactorily mitigated. The ACHP reached this conclusion based on its
finding that the project would adversely affect the viewsheds of 34
historic and/or traditional cultural properties in the area and
potentially adversely affect other cultural resources located on the
seafloor or buried in the Nantucket Sound. Regulations at 36 CFR
800.7(c)(4), implementing Section 106 of the NHPA, require the
Secretary to prepare a response to the ACHP and make that response
available to the public. The Secretary's response, transmitted on April
28, 2010, describes the Department and the MMS's efforts to identify,
assess, avoid, and minimize potential impacts on traditional cultural
resources and historic properties. The Department and the MMS
participated in numerous Section 106 meetings with consulting and
interested parties, as well as Government-to-Government meetings with
the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) and the Mashpee Wampanoag
Tribe. The Department complied with the Section 106 process for the
Project. The Secretary took into
[[Page 34154]]
account the Council's comments and documented the decision.
The Secretary's response provides a detailed description of project
design changes and mitigation measures adopted by the MMS, as well as
other Federal and state agencies to avoid and minimize potential visual
and bottom-disturbing impacts.
Availability of the ROD and Secretary's Response
To obtain a single printed copy of the ROD or the Secretary's
Response to the ACHP, you may contact the Minerals Management Service,
Office of Offshore Alternative Energy Programs (Mail Stop 4080), 381
Elden Street, Herndon, Virginia 20170. An electronic copy of the ROD
and Secretary's Response is available at the MMS's Web site at: https://www.doi.gov/news/doinews/Secretary-Salazar-Announces-Approval-of-Cape-Wind-Energy-Project-on-Outer-Continental-Shelf-off-Massachusetts.cfm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Minerals Management Service, Ms.
Maureen Bornholdt, Office of Offshore Alternative Energy Programs, 381
Elden Street, Herndon, Virginia 20170, (703) 787-1300.
Dated: June 7, 2010.
Robert P. LaBelle,
Acting Associate Director for Offshore Energy and Minerals Management.
[FR Doc. 2010-14528 Filed 6-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
