Western Area Power Administration; Grapevine Canyon Wind Project Record of Decision (DOE/EIS-0427), 55829-55832 [2012-22316]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2012 / Notices
= Kilowatt-hours of energy in storage as of
the end of the month immediately
preceding the specified month.
= Weighted average cost of energy for
pumping for the month immediately
preceding the specified month.
Fwav = EG ÷ ET
(Weighted average energy conversion factor
is equal to the energy generated from
pumping divided by the total energy for
pumping)
EG
= Energy generated from pumping.
Ld
= Weighted average energy loss factor on
energy delivered by the facilitator to the
customer.
Energy to be Furnished by the Government:
The Government will sell to the Customer
and the Customer will purchase from the
Government energy each billing month
equivalent to a percentage specified by
contract of the energy made available to the
Facilitator (less any losses required by the
Facilitator). The Customer’s contract demand
and accompanying energy will be allocated
proportionately to its individual delivery
points served from the Facilitator’s system.
Billing Month:
The billing month for power sold under
this schedule shall end at 12:00 midnight on
the last day of each calendar month.
Wholesale Power Rate Schedule
Replacement-1
Availability:
This rate schedule shall be available to
public bodies and cooperatives (any one of
whom is hereinafter called the Customer) in
Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida,
South Carolina, or North Carolina to whom
power is provided pursuant to contracts
between the Government and the Customer.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Applicability:
This rate schedule shall be applicable to
the sale at wholesale energy purchased to
meet contract minimum energy and sold
under appropriate contracts between the
Government and the Customer.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:06 Sep 10, 2012
Jkt 226001
The Government will sell to the Customer
and the Customer will purchase from the
Government energy each billing month
equivalent to a percentage specified by
contract of the energy made available to the
Facilitator (less any losses required by the
Facilitator). The Customer’s contract demand
and accompanying energy will be allocated
proportionately to its individual delivery
points served from the Facilitator’s system.
Billing Month:
The billing month for power sold under
this schedule shall end at 12:00 midnight on
the last day of each calendar month.
Wholesale Rate Schedule Regulation-1
Availability:
This rate schedule shall be available to
public bodies and cooperatives (any one of
whom is hereinafter called the Customer) in
Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida,
South Carolina, or North Carolina to whom
service is provided pursuant to contracts
between the Government and the Customer.
Applicability:
Character of Service:
The energy supplied hereunder will be
delivered at the delivery points provided for
under appropriate contracts between the
Government and the Customer.
Monthly Rate:
The rate for energy sold under this rate
schedule for the months specified shall be:
Energy to be Furnished by the Government:
This rate schedule shall be applicable to
the sale of regulation services provided from
the Allatoona, Buford, J. Strom Thurmond,
Walter F. George, Hartwell, Millers Ferry,
West Point, Robert F. Henry, Carters, and
Richard B. Russell Projects (hereinafter called
the Projects) and sold under appropriate
contracts between the Government and the
Customer.
Character of Service:
The service supplied hereunder will be
delivered at the Projects.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Monthly Rate:
The rate for service supplied under this
rate schedule for the period specified shall
be:
$0.05 per kilowatt of total contract demand
per month.
Contract Demand:
The contract demand is the amount of
capacity in kilowatts stated in the contract to
which the Government is obligated to supply
and the Customer is entitled to receive
regulation service.
Billing Month:
The billing month for services provided
under this schedule shall end at 12:00
midnight on the last day of each calendar
month.
[FR Doc. 2012–22308 Filed 9–10–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Western Area Power Administration;
Grapevine Canyon Wind Project
Record of Decision (DOE/EIS–0427)
Western Area Power
Administration, DOE.
ACTION: Record of Decision.
AGENCY:
Western Area Power
Administration (Western) received a
request from Foresight Flying M, LLC
(Foresight) to interconnect its proposed
Grapevine Canyon Wind Project
(Project) to Western’s Glen CanyonPinnacle Peak No. 1 and No. 2
transmission lines. The Project would
be located about 28 miles south and east
of Flagstaff, in Coconino County,
Arizona. On June 8, 2012, the Notice of
Availability of the Final Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for Grapevine
Canyon Wind Project was published in
the Federal Register (77 FR 34041).
After considering the environmental
impacts, Western has decided to allow
Foresight’s request for interconnection
to Western’s transmission system on its
Glen Canyon-Pinnacle Peak
transmission lines and to construct,
own, and operate a new switchyard to
accommodate the interconnection.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information, please contact Mr.
Matt Blevins, Corporate Services Office,
Western Area Power Administration,
A7400, P.O. Box 281213, Lakewood, CO
80228–8213, telephone (720) 962–7261,
fax (720) 962–7263, or email:
GrapevineWindEIS@wapa.gov. For
general information on DOE’s National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) review process, please contact
Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of
NEPA Policy and Compliance, GC–54,
U.S. Department of Energy, Washington,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\11SEN1.SGM
11SEN1
EN11SE12.025</GPH>
Lp
= Energy loss factor for transmission on
energy purchased or supplied for the
benefit of the customer for pumping
(Expected to be .03 or three percent.)
EnergyRate=Cwav÷(1 ¥ Ld)
[computed to the nearest $.00001 (1/100 mill)
per kWh]
(The weighted average cost of energy for
replacement energy divided by one minus
losses for delivery.)
Where:
C wav = Cp ÷ (E p x( (1) ¥ L p))
(The weighted average cost of energy for
replacement energy is equal to the cost of
replacement energy purchased divided by the
replacement energy purchased, net losses.)
Cp
= Dollars cost of energy purchased for
replacement energy during the specified
month, including all direct costs to
deliver energy to the project.
Ep
= Kilowatt-hours of energy purchased for
replacement energy during the specified
month.
Lp
= Energy loss factor for transmission on
replacement energy purchased (Expected
to be 0 or zero percent.)
Ld
= Weighted average energy loss factor on
energy delivered by the facilitator to the
customer.
EN11SE12.024</GPH>
supplied for the benefit of the customer
for pumping during the specified month.
55829
55830
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2012 / Notices
DC 20585, telephone (202) 586–4600 or
(800) 472–2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Western is
a Federal agency under the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) that
markets and transmits wholesale
electrical power through an integrated
17,000-circuit mile, high-voltage
transmission system across 15 western
states. Western’s Open Access
Transmission Service Tariff (Tariff)
provides open access to its electric
transmission system. Considering the
requester’s objectives, Western provides
transmission services if there is
available capacity and the reliability of
the transmission system is maintained.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Coconino National
Forest (Forest Service) and the Arizona
State Land Department participated as
cooperating agencies on the EIS.
Interested parties were notified of the
proposed Project and the public
comment opportunity through a Notice
of Intent published in the Federal
Register on July 24, 2009 (74 FR 36689).
The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) published a Notice of
Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIS in
the Federal Register on July 23, 2010
(75 FR 43161). The NOA also
announced a 45-day comment period for
receipt of comments on the Draft EIS.
On June 8, 2012, the EPA published an
NOA of the Final EIS for the Project in
the Federal Register (77 FR 34041).1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Proposed Federal Action
Western’s proposed Federal Action is
to approve Foresight’s request for
interconnection to Western’s
transmission system on the Glen
Canyon-Pinnacle Peak 345-kilovolt (kV)
transmission lines, an action that would
also require a new Western switchyard
on Forest Service-managed lands to be
constructed, owned, and operated by
Western.
Foresight Proposed Project
Foresight proposes to construct and
operate a utility-scale wind energy
generating facility on private and state
trust land. The wind energy generating
facility would generate up to 500
megawatts of electricity from wind
turbine generators (WTGs). The
proposed project includes a wind
energy generating facility (wind park)
and a 345-kV transmission tie-line. The
proposed wind park would be built in
one or more phases, dependent on one
or more power sale contracts. The
proposed wind park would include
1 The Final EIS can be found on Western’s Web
site at: https://ww2.wapa.gov/sites/Western/
transmission/interconn/Pages/Grapevine.aspx.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Sep 10, 2012
Jkt 226001
improved and new access and service
roads, WTGs, an electrical collection
system, up to two step-up substations,
an extension tie-line, communications
system, operations and maintenance
building, and meteorological monitoring
towers. A new 345-kV single-circuit
electrical transmission tie-line would be
constructed between the initial wind
park step-up substation and Western’s
proposed switchyard at its existing Glen
Canyon-Pinnacle Peak No. 1 and No. 2
345-kV transmission lines. The
transmission tie-line would be
approximately 15 miles in length,
extending 8.5 miles across Forest
Service-managed lands and up to
approximately 6.5 miles across state
trust and private lands.
Description of Alternatives
Foresight, in coordination with the
Forest Service, proposed a route for the
transmission tie-line to address
potential effects to visual resources and
avoid or minimize impacts to other
resources. The alternative tie-line would
deviate from Foresight’s proposed tieline route by approximately one-half
mile to avoid the intersection of Forest
Service routes 125 and 82 on Forest
Service-managed lands.
Five alternatives to the location of the
proposed transmission tie-line and
switchyard were considered during
scoping. Additionally, an alternative
addressing burying the transmission tieline was considered. None of the
transmission tie-line alternatives were
carried forward for consideration based
on criteria including cost, construction
feasibility, environmental resource
sensitivities, and conformance with
applicable land use plans. Alternatives
addressing the location of the proposed
wind park were not evaluated because
no alternative locations were proposed
during the EIS scoping process, and
decisions related to the wind park
location are outside the decisions that
would be made by the Federal agencies.
As required by 40 CFR 1505.2(b),
Western has identified the No Action
Alternative as its environmentally
preferred alternative. Under this
alternative, Western would deny the
interconnection request and not modify
its transmission system to interconnect
the proposed Project with its
transmission system. Under this
alternative, there would be no
modifications to Western’s transmission
system, and thus no new environmental
impacts. Foresight’s objectives relating
to renewable energy development
would not be met.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Mitigation Measures
Foresight, the Forest Service, and
Western proposed resource protection
measures (RPMs) for each resource area
to minimize impacts associated with
construction, operation, and
maintenance of the proposed Project.
Foresight and the Federal agencies
committed to these RPMs, and they
were included in the evaluation of
environmental impacts in the Final EIS.
Foresight will follow standard
construction practices, best management
practices, and RPMs during the
construction, operation, and
maintenance of the proposed wind park
and transmission tie-line facilities. To
implement the RPMs, an Avian and Bat
Protection Plan (ABPP) is being
voluntarily developed with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Arizona Department of Game and Fish.
The ABPP includes components such as
additional pre-construction and postconstruction wildlife studies to inform
final micro-siting of the initial project
phase and monitor operational impact
levels. An adaptive management
protocol will be implemented within
the ABPP whereby iterative decisionmaking (evaluating results and adjusting
actions on the basis of what has been
learned) will be undertaken to reduce or
avoid impacts to biological resources if
post-construction monitoring
demonstrates that impacts are greater
than anticipated.
Western does not have jurisdiction
over the siting, construction, or
operation of the proposed wind park, so
its proposed RPMs apply to the
proposed switchyard. The Forest
Service has proposed certain measures
that will be binding on Western for its
proposed switchyard. In addition,
Western requires its construction
contractors to implement standard
environmental protection provisions.
These provisions are provided in
Western’s Construction Standard 13 and
will be applied to the proposed
switchyard. Specific BMPs that the
Forest Service requires will address soil
and water resources and invasive
species management for the proposed
switchyard.
Western, the Forest Service, and
Foresight are among the signatories to a
Programmatic Agreement (PA) for
compliance with the National Historic
Preservation Act and, thus, will
implement provisions in the PA
addressing effects to properties on or
eligible for listing to the National
Register of Historic Places.
With this decision, Western is not
adopting any additional mitigation
measures that apply to its action outside
E:\FR\FM\11SEN1.SGM
11SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2012 / Notices
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
of the RPMs addressed in the Final EIS.
As such, a Mitigation Action Plan is not
required for Western’s proposed action.
The RPMs in the Final EIS reflect all
practicable means to avoid or minimize
environmental harm from the Project
and Western’s Proposed Action.
Comments on Final EIS
Western received comments from the
Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ) in a letter dated June 4,
2012, and from the EPA in a letter dated
June 27, 2012. Additionally, Western
received emails on June 6 and 11, 2012,
and a letter dated June 29, 2012, from
the owner of a 5-acre parcel about 2
miles east of the wind park study area
boundary. Based on a review of these
comments, Western has determined that
the comments do not present any
significant new circumstances or
information relevant to environmental
concerns and bearing on the Project or
its impacts, and a Supplemental EIS is
not required. The basis for this
determination is summarized below.
ADEQ provided information on how
to reduce particulate matter
disturbances and noted that it agreed
with the EIS determination of the need
for a minor air quality permit for the
portable rock crusher and concrete
batch plants. In addition, ADEQ
reiterated its recommendations
provided in its August 11, 2010, letter
with comments on the Draft EIS. As
noted in the Final EIS in response to the
ADEQ letter, the air quality-related
RPMs were expanded to address
ADEQ’s recommendations.
EPA noted in its comment letter that
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) has not verified the preliminary
jurisdictional delineation or issued a
final jurisdictional determination. EPA
recommended that this decision include
a final determination of the geographic
extent of jurisdictional waters, based on
the approved jurisdictional
determination. Based on information
provided by Foresight, the Preliminary
Jurisdictional Determination Report for
the initial development phase for the
wind park has been resubmitted to the
Corps, with modifications in response to
comments and suggestions made by the
Corps following their review of the
initial submittal. The resubmitted report
is consistent with the data and analysis
regarding the geographic extent of
jurisdictional waters included in the
Final EIS. Foresight will continue to
pursue a final determination by the
Corps and intends to obtain the
appropriate Clean Water Act Section
404 permits once the size of the initial
development and final infrastructure
siting are determined. Western’s
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Sep 10, 2012
Jkt 226001
switchyard would not affect any
jurisdictional waters.
EPA also recommended that, when
hauling material and operating nonearthmoving equipment, speeds be
limited to 15 miles per hour. Likewise,
for earthmoving equipment, EPA
recommended limiting speed to 10
miles per hour. Western agrees with
EPA’s recommendations and will
include provisions in its construction
contract for the switchyard that limit
construction vehicle speed limits.
Foresight indicated that the wind park
contractor will set speed limits within
the project site with lower speed limits
for construction areas as well as other
areas with construction and projectrelated traffic.
The owner of the parcel east of the
wind park study area provided
comments with concerns about not
being notified about the proposed
Project and an expansion of the study
area boundaries during the EIS scoping
process, the scoping map violating
standards for color blindness, wind park
access, WTG lighting, discrepancies
with land cover information,
groundwater impacts, ditch network
impacts, and visual impacts to views
from his parcel and Forest Servicemanaged lands west, south, and
southeast of the proposed wind park.
In response to the owner’s concerns
about the scoping process, Western sent
landowner notifications based on a list
of property owners within 10 miles of
the proposed Project. The owner of the
parcel was inadvertently not included
in the list. During the scoping process,
however, Western employed several
mechanisms to notify potentially
interested entities, including display
ads in the area newspaper, radio ads,
and postings of the project flyer in the
Flagstaff and Winslow, Arizona,
libraries, and the Meteor Crater RV Park
and Visitor Center. In addition, the
Forest Service maintained project
information under its Schedule of
Proposed Actions on its Web site. As
explained in the paragraphs that follow,
the EIS adequately addressed the
property owner’s concerns, even with
the expansion of the wind park study
area between the EIS scoping and the
issuance of the Draft EIS. In response to
the owner’s concern about the scoping
map violating the Americans with
Disabilities Act, Western’s use of color
in the maps and figures was used to
generally inform readers of various
aspects of the Project. Western
attempted to use sufficient difference in
color tones so that users who are colorblind or have poor vision could
distinguish between elements of the
page. However, even if a user could not
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
55831
distinguish colors on certain maps or
figures, the text of the Final EIS
adequately describes the Federal actions
and Foresight’s proposed Project as well
as the associated impacts. In addition,
Western posted an electronic copy of
the Final EIS, including the scoping
map, on its Web site that meets the
requirements of Section 508 of
Workforce Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In
relation to color, the primary
requirement is that color cannot be the
only means of identification on the
page. The Final EIS used text in
addition to color on the included maps
and figures as well as text in the Final
EIS body to convey the pertinent
information.
The property owner provided
information to augment information
included in the Final EIS, including the
status of Forest Road 69 between Chavez
Pass and State Route 87, the
management of lands along the southern
boundary of the wind park study area by
the Forest Service, and the ownership of
lands at KOPs 4 and 5 addressed in the
Final EIS. Western has noted this new
information provided by the property
owner, and it has been taken into
account in this decision. Responses to
the property owner’s other comments
follow.
The property owner expressed
concerns about the installation of red
flashing lights on wind turbine
generators per Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) requirements. Per
a RPM in the Final EIS, exterior lighting
on the WTGs required by the FAA
would be kept to the minimum number
and intensity required to meet FAA
standards. Based on this measure, the
proposed wind park would be
consistent with current Coconino
County goals and policies. The property
owner’s concern with the lighting does
not present any significant new
circumstances or information relevant to
environmental concerns.
The property owner commented that
groundwater impacts extend
significantly beyond the water resources
evaluation area addressed in the Final
EIS. Based on the analysis in the EIS,
the water level drawdown contour
would extend less than 800 feet from
each well used for construction and
would be negligible for wells more than
one-half mile away. Therefore, the
expected impacts at other existing wells
in the vicinity are minimal and are not
expected to affect the existing
groundwater users’ ability to continue
their existing uses. Western believes the
water analysis in the Final EIS
accurately reflects drawdown levels.
The property owner noted that the
Final EIS failed to mention the ditch
E:\FR\FM\11SEN1.SGM
11SEN1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
55832
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2012 / Notices
network in and north of Chavez Pass.
The RPMs included in the water
resources section of the Final EIS would
apply to the ditch network and wells in
the wind park study area. With these
measures, no permanent effects to the
ditch network are expected.
The property owner noted that KOP 5
is located about 1.5 miles from his
property, and commented that the
Scenery Integrity Level would change
from high to low, which the commenter
maintained would be unacceptable on
Forest Service lands. The Final EIS
includes photo simulations from a key
observation point (KOP No. 5) located
near State Highway 87 southeast of the
wind park study area near the owner’s
parcel. No project facilities would be
visible from KOP 5 located near the
property owner’s parcel for the initial
development phase. Based on an
evaluation in the Final EIS of the views
from KOP 5, views of the San Francisco
Peaks would be partially blocked by
some of the closest WTGs for the
subsequent build-out phases. The Final
EIS also indicates that the subsequent
build-out phases for the proposed wind
park would create a high visual contrast
from this viewpoint. However, the
nearest WTG would be located more
than one mile from the property owner’s
parcel in accordance with current
County goals and policies. In addition,
the views evaluated from KOP 5 are
primarily outside of the Forest Servicedefined management objectives. The
commenter’s concerns related to visual
impacts do not present any significant
new circumstances or information
relevant to environmental concerns.
In response to the property owner’s
information on land ownership at KOP
4, the property owner is correct that
KOP 4 is located on Forest Servicemanaged lands. The photo simulation
from KOP 4 simulates the proposed
wind park as it would be seen from a
point along Chavez Pass Road. WTGs
are depicted at a height of
approximately 430 feet, and a distance
of approximately 1.7 miles from the
road. As such, they are located within
middleground views. The KOP
represents a view into the proposed
wind park, which is not located on
Forest Service-managed lands and is
therefore outside of the Forest Servicedefined management objectives for
scenic resources. The Final EIS noted
that the proposed wind park would
result in visual contrast that ranges from
low to high on private and state lands.
Therefore, the location of the KOP on
Forest Service managed land, versus
state or private lands, do not present
any significant new circumstances or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:10 Sep 10, 2012
Jkt 226001
information relevant to environmental
concerns.
The property owner expressed
concerns that the views from KOP 6,
west of the proposed wind park and
near the transmission tie-line routing,
would result in a significant, drastic
change to a beautiful viewshed. This
KOP is located on Forest Service Road
125, along the eastern edge of Anderson
Mesa, looking to the east. The Final EIS
notes that the proposed wind park and
transmission tie-line would introduce
elements of form, line, scale, and color
that would contrast with the otherwise
natural valley floor. Therefore, the
concerns expressed by the property
owner do not present any significant
new circumstances or information
relevant to environmental concerns.
The property owner noted that the EIS
does not discuss Forest Service opinions
of landscape changes on non-Forest
Service land visible from Forest Servicemanaged lands. The purpose of the EIS
is to disclose the environmental impacts
from the proposed Project, not to
provide Western or Forest Service
opinions regarding developments on
private land. For the reasons stated
above in the discussion of visual
impacts from KOPs 4, 5, and 6, the Final
EIS adequately addresses the effects of
views from Forest Service-managed
lands towards the wind park
development.
Western does not have any
jurisdiction over the siting of WTGs, but
the owner of the parcel will have
opportunities to provide additional
input during the approval process for
the General Use Permit that would be
issued by Coconino County for the
Project.
Decision
Western’s decision is to allow
Foresight’s request for interconnection
to Western’s transmission system at its
Glen Canyon-Pinnacle Peak No. 1 and
No. 2 transmission lines, and to
construct, own, and operate a new
switchyard.2 Western’s decision to grant
this interconnection request satisfies the
agency’s statutory mission and
Foresight’s objectives while minimizing
harm to the environment. Full
implementation of this decision is
contingent upon Foresight obtaining all
other applicable permits and approvals
as well as executing an interconnection
agreement in accordance with Western’s
Tariff.
This decision is based on the
information contained in the Grapevine
2 Western’s authority to issue a ROD is pursuant
to authority delegated on November 16, 2011, from
DOE’s Office of the General Counsel.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Canyon Wind Project Final EIS and
comments received on the Final EIS.
This ROD was prepared pursuant to the
requirements of the Council on
Environmental Quality Regulations for
Implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts
1500–1508) and DOE’s Procedures for
Implementing NEPA (10 CFR part 1021).
Dated: August 28, 2012.
Anita J. Decker,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012–22316 Filed 9–10–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL–9726–9]
Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and
Equivalent Methods: Designation of a
New Equivalent Method
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of the designation of a
new equivalent method for monitoring
ambient air quality.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has designated, in accordance
with 40 CFR part 53, a new equivalent
method for measuring concentrations of
PM2.5 in the ambient air.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Vanderpool, Human Exposure
and Atmospheric Sciences Division
(MD–D205–03), National Exposure
Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711. Email:
Vanderpool.Robert@epa.gov.
SUMMARY:
In
accordance with regulations at 40 CFR
part 53, the EPA evaluates various
methods for monitoring the
concentrations of those ambient air
pollutants for which EPA has
established National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQSs) as set
forth in 40 CFR part 50. Monitoring
methods that are determined to meet
specific requirements for adequacy are
designated by the EPA as either
reference methods or equivalent
methods (as applicable), thereby
permitting their use under 40 CFR part
58 by States and other agencies for
determining compliance with the
NAAQSs.
The EPA hereby announces the
designation of a new equivalent method
for measuring pollutant concentrations
of PM2.5 in the ambient air. This
designation is made under the
provisions of 40 CFR part 53, as
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\11SEN1.SGM
11SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55829-55832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22316]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Western Area Power Administration; Grapevine Canyon Wind Project
Record of Decision (DOE/EIS-0427)
AGENCY: Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
ACTION: Record of Decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Western Area Power Administration (Western) received a request
from Foresight Flying M, LLC (Foresight) to interconnect its proposed
Grapevine Canyon Wind Project (Project) to Western's Glen Canyon-
Pinnacle Peak No. 1 and No. 2 transmission lines. The Project would be
located about 28 miles south and east of Flagstaff, in Coconino County,
Arizona. On June 8, 2012, the Notice of Availability of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Grapevine Canyon Wind Project
was published in the Federal Register (77 FR 34041). After considering
the environmental impacts, Western has decided to allow Foresight's
request for interconnection to Western's transmission system on its
Glen Canyon-Pinnacle Peak transmission lines and to construct, own, and
operate a new switchyard to accommodate the interconnection.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please
contact Mr. Matt Blevins, Corporate Services Office, Western Area Power
Administration, A7400, P.O. Box 281213, Lakewood, CO 80228-8213,
telephone (720) 962-7261, fax (720) 962-7263, or email:
GrapevineWindEIS@wapa.gov. For general information on DOE's National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) review process, please contact
Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, GC-
54, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington,
[[Page 55830]]
DC 20585, telephone (202) 586-4600 or (800) 472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Western is a Federal agency under the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) that markets and transmits wholesale
electrical power through an integrated 17,000-circuit mile, high-
voltage transmission system across 15 western states. Western's Open
Access Transmission Service Tariff (Tariff) provides open access to its
electric transmission system. Considering the requester's objectives,
Western provides transmission services if there is available capacity
and the reliability of the transmission system is maintained.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Coconino
National Forest (Forest Service) and the Arizona State Land Department
participated as cooperating agencies on the EIS. Interested parties
were notified of the proposed Project and the public comment
opportunity through a Notice of Intent published in the Federal
Register on July 24, 2009 (74 FR 36689). The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) published a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the
Draft EIS in the Federal Register on July 23, 2010 (75 FR 43161). The
NOA also announced a 45-day comment period for receipt of comments on
the Draft EIS. On June 8, 2012, the EPA published an NOA of the Final
EIS for the Project in the Federal Register (77 FR 34041).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Final EIS can be found on Western's Web site at: https://ww2.wapa.gov/sites/Western/transmission/interconn/Pages/Grapevine.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Federal Action
Western's proposed Federal Action is to approve Foresight's request
for interconnection to Western's transmission system on the Glen
Canyon-Pinnacle Peak 345-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines, an action
that would also require a new Western switchyard on Forest Service-
managed lands to be constructed, owned, and operated by Western.
Foresight Proposed Project
Foresight proposes to construct and operate a utility-scale wind
energy generating facility on private and state trust land. The wind
energy generating facility would generate up to 500 megawatts of
electricity from wind turbine generators (WTGs). The proposed project
includes a wind energy generating facility (wind park) and a 345-kV
transmission tie-line. The proposed wind park would be built in one or
more phases, dependent on one or more power sale contracts. The
proposed wind park would include improved and new access and service
roads, WTGs, an electrical collection system, up to two step-up
substations, an extension tie-line, communications system, operations
and maintenance building, and meteorological monitoring towers. A new
345-kV single-circuit electrical transmission tie-line would be
constructed between the initial wind park step-up substation and
Western's proposed switchyard at its existing Glen Canyon-Pinnacle Peak
No. 1 and No. 2 345-kV transmission lines. The transmission tie-line
would be approximately 15 miles in length, extending 8.5 miles across
Forest Service-managed lands and up to approximately 6.5 miles across
state trust and private lands.
Description of Alternatives
Foresight, in coordination with the Forest Service, proposed a
route for the transmission tie-line to address potential effects to
visual resources and avoid or minimize impacts to other resources. The
alternative tie-line would deviate from Foresight's proposed tie-line
route by approximately one-half mile to avoid the intersection of
Forest Service routes 125 and 82 on Forest Service-managed lands.
Five alternatives to the location of the proposed transmission tie-
line and switchyard were considered during scoping. Additionally, an
alternative addressing burying the transmission tie-line was
considered. None of the transmission tie-line alternatives were carried
forward for consideration based on criteria including cost,
construction feasibility, environmental resource sensitivities, and
conformance with applicable land use plans. Alternatives addressing the
location of the proposed wind park were not evaluated because no
alternative locations were proposed during the EIS scoping process, and
decisions related to the wind park location are outside the decisions
that would be made by the Federal agencies. As required by 40 CFR
1505.2(b), Western has identified the No Action Alternative as its
environmentally preferred alternative. Under this alternative, Western
would deny the interconnection request and not modify its transmission
system to interconnect the proposed Project with its transmission
system. Under this alternative, there would be no modifications to
Western's transmission system, and thus no new environmental impacts.
Foresight's objectives relating to renewable energy development would
not be met.
Mitigation Measures
Foresight, the Forest Service, and Western proposed resource
protection measures (RPMs) for each resource area to minimize impacts
associated with construction, operation, and maintenance of the
proposed Project. Foresight and the Federal agencies committed to these
RPMs, and they were included in the evaluation of environmental impacts
in the Final EIS. Foresight will follow standard construction
practices, best management practices, and RPMs during the construction,
operation, and maintenance of the proposed wind park and transmission
tie-line facilities. To implement the RPMs, an Avian and Bat Protection
Plan (ABPP) is being voluntarily developed with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Arizona Department of Game and Fish. The ABPP
includes components such as additional pre-construction and post-
construction wildlife studies to inform final micro-siting of the
initial project phase and monitor operational impact levels. An
adaptive management protocol will be implemented within the ABPP
whereby iterative decision-making (evaluating results and adjusting
actions on the basis of what has been learned) will be undertaken to
reduce or avoid impacts to biological resources if post-construction
monitoring demonstrates that impacts are greater than anticipated.
Western does not have jurisdiction over the siting, construction,
or operation of the proposed wind park, so its proposed RPMs apply to
the proposed switchyard. The Forest Service has proposed certain
measures that will be binding on Western for its proposed switchyard.
In addition, Western requires its construction contractors to implement
standard environmental protection provisions. These provisions are
provided in Western's Construction Standard 13 and will be applied to
the proposed switchyard. Specific BMPs that the Forest Service requires
will address soil and water resources and invasive species management
for the proposed switchyard.
Western, the Forest Service, and Foresight are among the
signatories to a Programmatic Agreement (PA) for compliance with the
National Historic Preservation Act and, thus, will implement provisions
in the PA addressing effects to properties on or eligible for listing
to the National Register of Historic Places.
With this decision, Western is not adopting any additional
mitigation measures that apply to its action outside
[[Page 55831]]
of the RPMs addressed in the Final EIS. As such, a Mitigation Action
Plan is not required for Western's proposed action. The RPMs in the
Final EIS reflect all practicable means to avoid or minimize
environmental harm from the Project and Western's Proposed Action.
Comments on Final EIS
Western received comments from the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) in a letter dated June 4, 2012, and from
the EPA in a letter dated June 27, 2012. Additionally, Western received
emails on June 6 and 11, 2012, and a letter dated June 29, 2012, from
the owner of a 5-acre parcel about 2 miles east of the wind park study
area boundary. Based on a review of these comments, Western has
determined that the comments do not present any significant new
circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and
bearing on the Project or its impacts, and a Supplemental EIS is not
required. The basis for this determination is summarized below.
ADEQ provided information on how to reduce particulate matter
disturbances and noted that it agreed with the EIS determination of the
need for a minor air quality permit for the portable rock crusher and
concrete batch plants. In addition, ADEQ reiterated its recommendations
provided in its August 11, 2010, letter with comments on the Draft EIS.
As noted in the Final EIS in response to the ADEQ letter, the air
quality-related RPMs were expanded to address ADEQ's recommendations.
EPA noted in its comment letter that the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) has not verified the preliminary jurisdictional
delineation or issued a final jurisdictional determination. EPA
recommended that this decision include a final determination of the
geographic extent of jurisdictional waters, based on the approved
jurisdictional determination. Based on information provided by
Foresight, the Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Report for the
initial development phase for the wind park has been resubmitted to the
Corps, with modifications in response to comments and suggestions made
by the Corps following their review of the initial submittal. The
resubmitted report is consistent with the data and analysis regarding
the geographic extent of jurisdictional waters included in the Final
EIS. Foresight will continue to pursue a final determination by the
Corps and intends to obtain the appropriate Clean Water Act Section 404
permits once the size of the initial development and final
infrastructure siting are determined. Western's switchyard would not
affect any jurisdictional waters.
EPA also recommended that, when hauling material and operating non-
earthmoving equipment, speeds be limited to 15 miles per hour.
Likewise, for earthmoving equipment, EPA recommended limiting speed to
10 miles per hour. Western agrees with EPA's recommendations and will
include provisions in its construction contract for the switchyard that
limit construction vehicle speed limits. Foresight indicated that the
wind park contractor will set speed limits within the project site with
lower speed limits for construction areas as well as other areas with
construction and project-related traffic.
The owner of the parcel east of the wind park study area provided
comments with concerns about not being notified about the proposed
Project and an expansion of the study area boundaries during the EIS
scoping process, the scoping map violating standards for color
blindness, wind park access, WTG lighting, discrepancies with land
cover information, groundwater impacts, ditch network impacts, and
visual impacts to views from his parcel and Forest Service-managed
lands west, south, and southeast of the proposed wind park.
In response to the owner's concerns about the scoping process,
Western sent landowner notifications based on a list of property owners
within 10 miles of the proposed Project. The owner of the parcel was
inadvertently not included in the list. During the scoping process,
however, Western employed several mechanisms to notify potentially
interested entities, including display ads in the area newspaper, radio
ads, and postings of the project flyer in the Flagstaff and Winslow,
Arizona, libraries, and the Meteor Crater RV Park and Visitor Center.
In addition, the Forest Service maintained project information under
its Schedule of Proposed Actions on its Web site. As explained in the
paragraphs that follow, the EIS adequately addressed the property
owner's concerns, even with the expansion of the wind park study area
between the EIS scoping and the issuance of the Draft EIS. In response
to the owner's concern about the scoping map violating the Americans
with Disabilities Act, Western's use of color in the maps and figures
was used to generally inform readers of various aspects of the Project.
Western attempted to use sufficient difference in color tones so that
users who are color-blind or have poor vision could distinguish between
elements of the page. However, even if a user could not distinguish
colors on certain maps or figures, the text of the Final EIS adequately
describes the Federal actions and Foresight's proposed Project as well
as the associated impacts. In addition, Western posted an electronic
copy of the Final EIS, including the scoping map, on its Web site that
meets the requirements of Section 508 of Workforce Rehabilitation Act
of 1973. In relation to color, the primary requirement is that color
cannot be the only means of identification on the page. The Final EIS
used text in addition to color on the included maps and figures as well
as text in the Final EIS body to convey the pertinent information.
The property owner provided information to augment information
included in the Final EIS, including the status of Forest Road 69
between Chavez Pass and State Route 87, the management of lands along
the southern boundary of the wind park study area by the Forest
Service, and the ownership of lands at KOPs 4 and 5 addressed in the
Final EIS. Western has noted this new information provided by the
property owner, and it has been taken into account in this decision.
Responses to the property owner's other comments follow.
The property owner expressed concerns about the installation of red
flashing lights on wind turbine generators per Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) requirements. Per a RPM in the Final EIS, exterior
lighting on the WTGs required by the FAA would be kept to the minimum
number and intensity required to meet FAA standards. Based on this
measure, the proposed wind park would be consistent with current
Coconino County goals and policies. The property owner's concern with
the lighting does not present any significant new circumstances or
information relevant to environmental concerns.
The property owner commented that groundwater impacts extend
significantly beyond the water resources evaluation area addressed in
the Final EIS. Based on the analysis in the EIS, the water level
drawdown contour would extend less than 800 feet from each well used
for construction and would be negligible for wells more than one-half
mile away. Therefore, the expected impacts at other existing wells in
the vicinity are minimal and are not expected to affect the existing
groundwater users' ability to continue their existing uses. Western
believes the water analysis in the Final EIS accurately reflects
drawdown levels.
The property owner noted that the Final EIS failed to mention the
ditch
[[Page 55832]]
network in and north of Chavez Pass. The RPMs included in the water
resources section of the Final EIS would apply to the ditch network and
wells in the wind park study area. With these measures, no permanent
effects to the ditch network are expected.
The property owner noted that KOP 5 is located about 1.5 miles from
his property, and commented that the Scenery Integrity Level would
change from high to low, which the commenter maintained would be
unacceptable on Forest Service lands. The Final EIS includes photo
simulations from a key observation point (KOP No. 5) located near State
Highway 87 southeast of the wind park study area near the owner's
parcel. No project facilities would be visible from KOP 5 located near
the property owner's parcel for the initial development phase. Based on
an evaluation in the Final EIS of the views from KOP 5, views of the
San Francisco Peaks would be partially blocked by some of the closest
WTGs for the subsequent build-out phases. The Final EIS also indicates
that the subsequent build-out phases for the proposed wind park would
create a high visual contrast from this viewpoint. However, the nearest
WTG would be located more than one mile from the property owner's
parcel in accordance with current County goals and policies. In
addition, the views evaluated from KOP 5 are primarily outside of the
Forest Service-defined management objectives. The commenter's concerns
related to visual impacts do not present any significant new
circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns.
In response to the property owner's information on land ownership
at KOP 4, the property owner is correct that KOP 4 is located on Forest
Service-managed lands. The photo simulation from KOP 4 simulates the
proposed wind park as it would be seen from a point along Chavez Pass
Road. WTGs are depicted at a height of approximately 430 feet, and a
distance of approximately 1.7 miles from the road. As such, they are
located within middleground views. The KOP represents a view into the
proposed wind park, which is not located on Forest Service-managed
lands and is therefore outside of the Forest Service-defined management
objectives for scenic resources. The Final EIS noted that the proposed
wind park would result in visual contrast that ranges from low to high
on private and state lands. Therefore, the location of the KOP on
Forest Service managed land, versus state or private lands, do not
present any significant new circumstances or information relevant to
environmental concerns.
The property owner expressed concerns that the views from KOP 6,
west of the proposed wind park and near the transmission tie-line
routing, would result in a significant, drastic change to a beautiful
viewshed. This KOP is located on Forest Service Road 125, along the
eastern edge of Anderson Mesa, looking to the east. The Final EIS notes
that the proposed wind park and transmission tie-line would introduce
elements of form, line, scale, and color that would contrast with the
otherwise natural valley floor. Therefore, the concerns expressed by
the property owner do not present any significant new circumstances or
information relevant to environmental concerns.
The property owner noted that the EIS does not discuss Forest
Service opinions of landscape changes on non-Forest Service land
visible from Forest Service-managed lands. The purpose of the EIS is to
disclose the environmental impacts from the proposed Project, not to
provide Western or Forest Service opinions regarding developments on
private land. For the reasons stated above in the discussion of visual
impacts from KOPs 4, 5, and 6, the Final EIS adequately addresses the
effects of views from Forest Service-managed lands towards the wind
park development.
Western does not have any jurisdiction over the siting of WTGs, but
the owner of the parcel will have opportunities to provide additional
input during the approval process for the General Use Permit that would
be issued by Coconino County for the Project.
Decision
Western's decision is to allow Foresight's request for
interconnection to Western's transmission system at its Glen Canyon-
Pinnacle Peak No. 1 and No. 2 transmission lines, and to construct,
own, and operate a new switchyard.\2\ Western's decision to grant this
interconnection request satisfies the agency's statutory mission and
Foresight's objectives while minimizing harm to the environment. Full
implementation of this decision is contingent upon Foresight obtaining
all other applicable permits and approvals as well as executing an
interconnection agreement in accordance with Western's Tariff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Western's authority to issue a ROD is pursuant to authority
delegated on November 16, 2011, from DOE's Office of the General
Counsel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This decision is based on the information contained in the
Grapevine Canyon Wind Project Final EIS and comments received on the
Final EIS. This ROD was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the
Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing NEPA (40
CFR parts 1500-1508) and DOE's Procedures for Implementing NEPA (10 CFR
part 1021).
Dated: August 28, 2012.
Anita J. Decker,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-22316 Filed 9-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
