Upper Great Plains Wind Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement; Record of Decision, 44324-44325 [2016-16078]
Download as PDF
44324
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2016 / Notices
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Authority
We provide this notice under Section
10 of the Act and NEPA regulations (40
CFR 1506.6).
Dated: June 29, 2016.
Jay B. Herrington,
Field Supervisor, Jacksonville Field Office,
Southeast Region.
[FR Doc. 2016–16079 Filed 7–6–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
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
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
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: https://
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
Kelly_Hogan@fws.gov (email).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
Background
The Record of Decision (ROD) we
announce today documents the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jul 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
https://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.
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
07JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 130 / Thursday, July 7, 2016 / Notices
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.
srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jul 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
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 sitespecific 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
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44325
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
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[16X LLIDB00100.LF1000000.HT0000.
LXSS024D0000.241A00]
Notice of Public Meeting: Resource
Advisory Council (RAC) to the Boise
District, Bureau of Land Management,
U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management,
U.S. Department of the Interior.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
AGENCY:
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) Boise District
Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will
hold a meeting as indicated below.
DATES: The meeting will be held August
3, 2016, at the Boise District Office,
3948 Development Avenue, Boise, Idaho
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
07JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 130 (Thursday, July 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44324-44325]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16078]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R6-R-2016-N045; FXRS12610600000-167-FF06R00000]
Upper Great Plains Wind Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement; Record of Decision
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the Western
Area Power Administration (Western), as joint lead agencies, issued the
Upper Great Plains Wind Energy Final Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement (Final PEIS) on May 1, 2015. The Service has decided to
implement Alternative 1, as described in the Final PEIS and summarized
in the Record of Decision (ROD). Alternative 1 was identified as both
the agency-preferred alternative and the environmentally preferred
alternative.
ADDRESSES: You may request copies of the Final PEIS and ROD, or more
information, by one of the following methods.
Web site: https://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
Kelly_Hogan@fws.gov (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 https://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