60102 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 

[FR Doc. 2010–24233 Filed 9–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–C 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Western Area Power Administration 

South Dakota PrairieWinds Project 

(DOE/EIS–0418) 

AGENCY: Western Area Power 

Administration, DOE. 

ACTION: Notice of Record of Decision 

and Floodplain Statement of Findings. 

SUMMARY: The Western Area Power 

Administration (Western) received two 

requests from Basin Electric Power 

Cooperative (Basin Electric); one to 

interconnect their proposed South 

Dakota PrairieWinds Project (Proposed 

Project) and one to interconnect the 

South Dakota Wind Partners, LLC’s 

(Wind Partners’) proposed development 

to Western’s transmission system. The 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural 

Utilities Service (RUS), also received a 

request from Basin Electric for financial 

assistance for the Proposed Project. RUS 

is a joint lead agency in the 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

process. 

The Proposed Project includes a 

151.5-megawatt (MW) nameplate 

capacity wind-powered energy 

generation facility that would feature 

101 wind turbine generators; 6,000 

square-foot operations and maintenance 

building and fence perimeter; 64 miles 

of underground communication system 

and electrical collector lines (within the 

same trench); 34.5-kilovolt (kV) to 230- 

kV collector substation and microwave 

tower; 11 mile-long overhead 230-kV 

transmission line; temporary 

equipment/material storage or lay-down 

areas; temporary batch plant; temporary 

crane walks; and 81 miles of new and/ 

or upgraded service roads to access the 

facilities. Wind Partners’ proposed 

development would include the 

installation of an additional seven 

turbines within the Crow Lake 

Alternative and use a portion of the 

other facilities described for the 

Proposed Project. Through an agreement 

between Basin Electric and Wind 

Partners, Basin Electric would 

construct, operate, and maintain the 

Wind Partners’ proposed development. 

Western considered the 

interconnection requests under the 

provisions of its Open Access 

Transmission Service Tariff (Tariff), 

along with the information in the EIS 

and all comments received, and has 

made the decision to allow both of 

Basin Electric’s requests to interconnect 

at Western’s existing Wessington 

Springs Substation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Please contact Ms. Liana Reilly, 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) Document Manager, Western 

Area Power Administration, P.O. Box 

281213, Lakewood, CO 80228; 

telephone (800) 336–7288 or e-mail 

sdprairiewinds@wapa.gov for additional 

information concerning the Proposed 

Project and Wind Partners’ proposed 

development. 

For general information on the 

Department of Energy’s (DOE) NEPA 

review process, please contact Ms. Carol 

M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA 

Policy and Compliance, GC–54, U.S. 

Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585; telephone (800) 

472–2756. 

For information on RUS financing, 

contact Mr. Dennis Rankin, Project 

Manager, Engineering and 

Environmental Staff, Rural Utilities 

Service, Utilities Program, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., Mail Stop 

1571, Washington, DC 20250–1571, 

telephone (202) 720–1953 or e-mail 

dennis.rankin@wdc.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Western is 

a Federal agency within the DOE that 

markets and transmits wholesale 

electrical power through an integrated 

17,000-mile, high-voltage transmission 

system across 15 western states. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICESEN29SE10.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 60103 

Western received two requests from 

Basin Electric; one to interconnect the 

Proposed Project and one to 

interconnect the Wind Partners’ 

proposed development, to Western’s 

transmission system. The Proposed 

Project and the Wind Partners’ proposed 

development are located within 

Western’s Upper Great Plains Region, 

which operates and maintains nearly 

100 substations and nearly 7,800 miles 

of Federal transmission lines in 

Minnesota, South Dakota, North Dakota, 

Montana, Nebraska, and Iowa. 

Western and RUS published a Notice 

of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS on 

April 7, 2009, (74 FR 15718). A Notice 

of Availability of the Draft EIS was 

published by the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

on January 15, 2010 (75 FR 2540), and 

a Notice of Availability of the Final EIS 

was published by the EPA on July 30, 

2010 (75 FR 44951). 

Western’s Purpose and Need 

Western’s need for action is triggered 

by Basin Electric’s interconnection 

requests. Western’s Tariff describes the 

conditions necessary for access to its 

transmission system. Western provides 

an interconnection if there is available 

capacity on the transmission system, 

while considering transmission system 

reliability and power delivery to 

existing customers, and the applicant’s 

objectives. 

Western’s Proposed Action 

Western’s Federal involvement, under 

the provisions of the Tariff, is limited to 

consideration of Basin Electric’s 

interconnection request for their 

Proposed Project and the 

interconnection request for the Wind 

Partners’ proposed development. 

Western’s Proposed Action is to 

interconnect the Proposed Project and 

Wind Partners’ proposed development 

to Western’s transmission system. This 

involves adding electrical equipment to 

the Wessington Springs Substation and 

making other minor system 

modifications within the substation. 

Basin Electric’s Purpose and Need 

Public policy regarding the electric 

industry has increasingly focused on the 

carbon intensity of the resources 

commonly used to generate electricity. 

As a result, incentives and regulations 

to encourage or require the generation of 

power from renewable or lowenvironmental-impact resources are 

being actively considered and/or 

implemented within the Basin Electric 

member service areas. With members in 

nine States, Basin Electric recognizes 

the need for additional renewable 

energy capacity to service forecasted 

member load-growth demands and to 

meet State-mandated RPS. In addition, 

Basin Electric membership passed a 

resolution at their 2005 annual meeting 

that established a goal to, ‘‘obtain 

renewable or environmentally benign 

resources equal to 10 percent of the MW 

capacity needed to meet its member 

demand by 2010.’’ 

Basin Electric’s 2007 Power Supply 

Analysis (PSA) provided an in-depth 

look at Basin Electric’s current operating 

system, future load growth and the 

framework for future expansion, 

including both supply-side and 

demand-side resource expansion. All 

future expansion portfolios include 

wind energy development. Basin 

Electric determined that a 151.5–MW 

wind farm would be the best available, 

least-cost renewable resource energy 

generation option to meet the Statemandated RPS and renewable energy 

objective (REO), meet Basin Electric’s 

renewable energy goal established in 

2005, and serve forecasted member 

load-growth demands. With the 

addition of 151.5 MW from the 

Proposed Project, Basin Electric would 

be able to meet the REO requirements 

for those States that currently have 

them. 

Basin Electric’s Proposed Project 

The Proposed Project includes a 

151.5–MW nameplate capacity windpowered energy generation facility that 

would feature 101 wind turbine 

generators, operations and maintenance 

building and fence perimeter, 

underground communication system 

and electrical collector lines (within the 

same trench), collector substation and 

microwave tower, overhead 

transmission line, temporary 

equipment/material storage or lay-down 

areas, temporary batch plant, temporary 

crane walks, and new and/or upgraded 

service roads to access the facilities. 

Wind Partners’ Purpose and Need 

The Wind Partners’ proposed 

development would enable local 

community involvement and 

investment in wind projects. The 

proposed development would also help 

meet the State of South Dakota’s 

voluntary REO of 10 percent. 

Wind Partners’ Proposed Development 

The Wind Partners’ proposed 

development would include the 

installation of an additional seven 

turbines within the Crow Lake 

Alternative and use a portion of the 

other facilities described for the 

Proposed Project. Through an agreement 

between Basin Electric and Wind 

Partners, Basin Electric would 

construct, operate, and maintain the 

Wind Partners’ proposed development. 

Alternatives Considered 

The EIS reviewed the options 

considered by Basin Electric in its 

PrairieWinds—SD 1 Alternative 

Evaluation Analysis and Site Selection 

Study (PrairieWinds Study). The 

PrairieWinds Study determined a wind 

project to be the best available, leastcost renewable resource option to satisfy 

future load and RPS requirements. 

Western has no decision-making 

authority over these options. Western’s 

Federal involvement is limited to the 

determination of whether to allow the 

interconnections of the Proposed Project 

and the Wind Partners’ proposed 

development. For the purposes of 

furthering environmental decision 

making, the EIS analyzed three 

alternatives: No Action Alternative, 

Crow Lake Alternative, and Winner 

Alternative. 

No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, 

Western would deny the 

interconnection request(s) and RUS 

would not provide financial assistance 

for the Proposed Project. For the 

purpose of impact analysis and 

comparison in the EIS, it was assumed 

that the Proposed Project and Wind 

Partners’ proposed development would 

not be built and the environmental 

impacts, both positive and negative, 

associated with construction and 

operation would not occur. However, 

Basin Electric is a regulated utility with 

load growth responsibility and a need to 

meet RPSs, REOs, and renewable energy 

goals; therefore, it is reasonable to 

expect that it would construct a similar 

generation facility elsewhere in South 

Dakota. Such a facility might not 

interconnect to a Federal transmission 

system, involve Federal financing, or 

have any other Federal nexus that 

would require a NEPA process. 

Crow Lake Alternative 

The Crow Lake Alternative is located 

on approximately 36,000 acres 

approximately 15 miles north of the City 

of White Lake, South Dakota, within 

Aurora, Brule, and Jerauld counties, and 

would interconnect with Western’s 

Wessington Springs Substation, located 

in Jerauld County, South Dakota. The 

Proposed Project includes a 151.5–MW 

nameplate capacity wind-powered 

energy generation facility that would 

feature 101 wind turbine generators; 

6,000 square-foot operations and 

maintenance building and fence 

perimeter; 64 miles of underground 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
60104 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 

communication system and electrical 

collector lines (within the same trench); 

34.5-kV to 230-kV collector substation 

and microwave tower; 11 mile-long 

overhead 230-kV transmission line; 

equipment/material storage or lay-down 

areas (temporary impact of 10 acres); 

batch plant (temporary impact of 8 

acres); crane walks (temporary impact of 

254.6 acres); and 81 miles of new and/ 

or upgraded service roads to access the 

facilities. Wind Partners’ proposed 

development would include the 

installation of an additional seven 

turbines within the Crow Lake 

Alternative and share use of a small 

portion of the other facilities described 

for the Proposed Project. Through an 

agreement between Basin Electric and 

Wind Partners, Basin Electric would 

construct, operate, and maintain the 

Wind Partners’ proposed development. 

The Crow Lake Alternative would result 

in a temporary impact to 1,006 acres 

and permanent impact to 190 acres. 

Winner Alternative 

The Winner Alternative is located on 

an approximately 83,000-acre area 

entirely within Tripp County, 

approximately eight miles south of the 

City of Winner, South Dakota, and 

would interconnect with Western’s 

Winner Substation, located in Tripp 

County, South Dakota. The Proposed 

Project would be similar to that 

described for the Crow Lake Alternative 

with the following exceptions: it 

includes 108 miles of underground 

communication system and electrical 

collector lines (within the same trench); 

34.5-kV to 115-kV collector substation 

and microwave tower; a 10 to 11 milelong overhead 115-kV transmission line; 

equipment/material storage or lay-down 

areas (temporary impact of 40 acres); 

crane walks (temporary impact of 530 

acres); and117 miles of new and/or 

upgraded service roads to access the 

facilities. The Winner Alternative would 

result in a temporary impact to 3,187 

acres and permanent impact to 261 

acres. The Wind Partners’ proposed 

development does not pertain to the 

Winner Alternative. 

Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

As required by 40 CFR 1505.2(b), 

Western has identified the No Action 

Alternative as the environmentally 

preferred alternative. Under this 

alternative, Western would deny the 

interconnection requests and not modify 

its transmission system to interconnect 

the Proposed Project and Wind Partners’ 

proposed development and it was 

assumed for the EIS that the associated 

environmental impacts would not 

occur. However, Western must respond 

to Basin Electric’s interconnection 

requests under the terms of the Tariff. 

The Tariff and underlying Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 

orders mandating open access to 

transmission systems establish 

conditions under which interconnection 

requests must be considered (FERC 

Order Nos. 888 and 888–A). 

Agency Preferred Alternative 

Western’s Tariff provides open access 

to its transmission system. If there is 

available capacity in the transmission 

system, Western provides transmission 

services through an interconnection. 

Transmission studies completed for the 

Crow Lake Alternative demonstrate that 

transmission capacity is available for 

the Proposed Project through an 

interconnection at Western’s existing 

Wessington Springs Substation without 

the need to expand the substation. 

Facility expansion may be required at 

Western’s Winner Substation to 

accommodate interconnecting the 

Winner Alternative. Since transmission 

capacity is available for the Crow Lake 

Alternative and transmission studies 

have demonstrated that system 

reliability and service to existing 

customers would not be jeopardized, 

and taking into account the 

environmental impacts, the 

interconnection at Western’s 

Wessington Springs Substation was 

identified as Western’s preferred 

alternative in the Final EIS. 

Environmental Impacts 

The analysis in the Final EIS 

demonstrated that the Proposed Project 

and Wind Partners’ proposed 

development (at the Crow Lake 

Alternative) would have no impacts or 

less than significant impacts on geology 

and soils, water, land use (including 

farmland and recreation), 

transportation, visual resources, noise, 

socioeconomics, environmental justice, 

cultural resources, and health and 

safety. Expected impacts on other 

environmental resources are discussed 

below. The analysis in the Final EIS also 

demonstrated that Western’s proposed 

action would have no impacts or less 

than significant impacts to all resources 

since modifications required for the 

interconnection would be confined to 

the existing Wessington Springs 

Substation. 

Air Quality and Climate Change 

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is one of six 

greenhouse gases (GHGs) that contribute 

to climate change and represents 

approximately 84 percent of all GHG 

emissions in the United States. Wind 

power generates electricity without air 

emissions, including CO2. Within South 

Dakota, CO2 emissions resulting from 

fossil fuel combustion totaled 13.78 

million tons in 2007; of these, activities 

related to the generation of electric 

power accounted for 2.96 million tons 

of CO2. Further, operation of the 

Proposed Project and Wind Partners’ 

proposed development would avoid 

726,600 metric tons of CO2 emissions 

per year compared to the average 

emissions of fossil fueled generating 

stations employed in South Dakota; 

thus, would contribute to the national 

and State efforts to minimize GHG 

emissions. This amount avoided is 

equal to the annual CO2 emissions of 

approximately 130,000 average 

passenger cars. 

Biology 

Avian mortality from collisions with 

turbines would likely occur. Data 

obtained through baseline avian use 

surveys and local habitat 

characterization suggest that avian 

mortality rates are likely to be similar to 

or lower than those experienced at other 

United States wind farms. Based on the 

anticipated low level of mortality and 

incorporation of Best Management 

Practices (BMPs), Applicants’ Proposed 

Measures (APMs), Operations and 

Monitoring Plan (OMP), and voluntary 

conservation measures for habitat 

offsets, impacts to birds would be less 

than significant. Based on existing avian 

use data from the Crow Lake 

Alternative, bird fatalities are expected 

to be low compared with other wind 

facilities around the United States. 

Bat mortality from collisions with 

turbines would likely occur. Some 

researchers have concluded that 

observed mortality rates do not have 

population-level effects, and no 

significant difference has been noted in 

mortality rates at lit and unlit turbines. 

Preliminary data from bat call studies in 

2009 indicate low bat activity in the 

Crow Lake Alternative; therefore, the 

frequency of collisions may be low 

based on recently collected bat data. 

Additionally, the incorporation of 

APMs, BMPs, and an OMP would 

minimize impacts to bats. 

Public Involvement 

An NOI describing the proposed 

action was published in the Federal 

Register on April 7, 2009 (74 FR 15718). 

The NOI announced the intent to 

prepare an EIS on the Proposed Project, 

described the proposal, provided 

scoping meeting locations and dates, 

started a 30-day comment period, and 

provided contacts for further 

information about the Proposed Project 

and for submitting scoping comments. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 60105 

The public scoping meetings were held 

at Winner, South Dakota, on April 28, 

2009, and at Plankinton, South Dakota, 

on April 29, 2009. Western and RUS 

held an interagency meeting in Pierre, 

South Dakota, on April 28, 2009. A total 

of 77 written comment documents from 

agencies and individuals were received 

during the scoping period; these 

comments were addressed in the Draft 

EIS. 

A Notice of Availability of the Draft 

EIS was published by the EPA in the 

Federal Register on January 15, 2010 

(75 FR 2540). Western and RUS held an 

interagency meeting in Pierre, South 

Dakota, on February 11, 2010. A public 

hearing to receive comments on the 

Draft EIS was held in Chamberlain, 

South Dakota, on February 11, 2010. 

Comments from three individuals were 

transcribed for the record during the 

public hearing and 30 written comment 

documents were received from agencies 

and individuals. Substantive, factual, 

and editorial comments were 

incorporated and addressed in the Final 

EIS; other comments not affecting the 

substance of the document have been 

noted. 

The EPA published the Notice of 

Availability of the Final EIS on July 30, 

2010. The 30-day review period ended 

on August 30, 2010. Two comments 

were received on the Final EIS (see 

below for response to comments on 

Final EIS). 

Mitigation Measures 

Through public and agency 

participation in the NEPA process, 

Basin Electric has altered the design of 

the Proposed Project and Wind Partners’ 

proposed development to minimize 

impacts to the environment. As 

described in Chapter 2 of the Final EIS, 

the Proposed Project and Wind Partners’ 

proposed development include APMs, 

BMPs, OMP, and voluntary 

conservation measures for habitat offsets 

to minimize, monitor, and/or mitigate 

environmental impacts. Generally, the 

APMs and BMPs represent standard 

measures to minimize impacts 

associated with construction and 

operation. The OMP provides a 

framework for post-construction 

wildlife monitoring for whooping 

cranes, bird and bat mortality, grassland 

breeding birds, and avian use. Basin 

Electric included voluntary 

conservation measures to offset indirect 

impacts to wetland and grassland 

habitat; the offsets included 

compensation for 76.7 acres of wetland 

habitat and 675 acres of grassland 

habitat and were developed in 

coordination with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS). Furthermore, 

Basin Electric has committed to identify 

potential effects of the Proposed Project 

and Wind Partners’ proposed 

development on birds and bats and to 

use the results of their 3-year Bird and 

Bat Fatality Monitoring to identify and 

incorporate, to the extent practicable, 

measures to minimize bird and bat 

mortality. 

Western’s authority is limited to 

mitigation associated with the 

interconnection of the Proposed Project 

and the Wind Partners’ proposed 

development. Western will adhere to its 

own standard mitigation measures for 

all modifications within Wessington 

Springs Substation. 

Consultation 

Western is the lead Federal agency for 

compliance with section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (16 

U.S.C. 479(f)). By letter of June 30, 2010, 

the South Dakota State Historic 

Preservation Officer concurred with the 

determination of No Adverse Effect 

based on the stipulations outlined in the 

Memorandum of Understanding entitled 

‘‘Memorandum of Understanding among 

Western Area Power Administration, 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Crow 

Creek Sioux Tribe, Flandreau Santee 

Sioux Tribe, Fort Peck Tribes, Lower 

Brule Sioux Tribe, Lower Sioux Indian 

Community, Oglala Sioux Tribe, 

Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Santee Sioux 

Tribe, Sisseton-Wahpeton Dakota 

Nation, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, 

Spirit Lake Tribal Council, Three 

Affiliated Tribes, Upper Sioux Indian 

Community, Yankton Sioux Tribe, 

Wahpetkute Band of the Dakota, the 

South Dakota State Historic Preservation 

Officer, and Basin Electric Power 

Cooperative, regarding Treatment of 

Archaeological and TCP Historic 

Properties for the South Dakota Prairie 

Winds Project.’’ Western will ensure that 

the provisions outlined in the MOU are 

implemented. 

RUS is the lead Federal agency for 

compliance with section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 

1536). On February 18, 2010, a 

Biological Assessment was prepared 

and submitted with a determination that 

the Proposed Project and Wind Partners’ 

proposed development would not likely 

affect the piping plover and is likely to 

adversely affect the whooping crane. 

The USFWS concurred via a March 16, 

2010, letter with RUS’s determination 

that the Proposed Project is not likely to 

adversely affect the piping plover and is 

likely to adversely affect the whooping 

crane. In the Biological Opinion dated 

July 13, 2010, the USFWS concluded 

that, ‘‘after reviewing the current status 

of the whooping crane, the 

environmental baseline for the action 

area, the effects of the proposed action, 

and the cumulative effects, it is the 

Service’s biological opinion that the 

SDPW project [the Proposed Project and 

Wind Partners’ proposed development] 

is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the whooping crane. 

Critical habitat for the whooping crane 

has been designated in other areas 

within the species’ range but not in the 

action area nor in South Dakota; 

therefore, destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat will not 

occur.’’ Section 7 consultation has 

concluded and the Biological Opinion 

identified that no terms and conditions 

or reasonable and prudent measures are 

required for the Proposed Project and 

Wind Partners’ proposed development. 

Floodplains and Wetlands 

In accordance with 10 CFR Part 1022, 

Western considered the potential 

impacts of the Proposed Project and 

Wind Partners’ proposed development 

on floodplains and wetlands. The 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

has not mapped flood hazards in the 

unincorporated areas of Brule and 

Jerauld counties. Aurora County has 

been mapped and is designated as Zone 

D (i.e., areas with possible but 

undetermined flood hazards, no flood 

hazard analysis has been conducted). 

Impacts to floodplains would be 

negligible because components would 

not be located in the areas that are the 

most prone to flooding (streams and 

wetlands [see below for wetland 

determination]), the impact area 

represents a small and dispersed 

footprint (190 acres spread across the 

36,000 acre site), and engineering design 

and controls would minimize risk to 

and/or from flooding. 

Field investigations were conducted 

to verify National Wetland Inventory 

(NWI) wetlands and map the actual 

location of wetlands within the Crow 

Lake Alternative. Wetlands that were 

field-verified (not NWI wetlands) were 

used in the impact analysis because (1) 

they were identified in the field as 

opposed to NWI wetlands that are 

identified on maps and not fieldverified, and (2) field-verified wetlands 

accounted for a larger, more 

conservative, acreage than NWI 

wetlands. In addition, wetlands 

(including jurisdictional, nonjurisdictional and waters of the U.S., 

collectively termed ‘‘wetlands’’) were 

delineated for the Crow Lake 

Alternative. Basin Electric has 

committed to a voluntary conservation 

measure to offset 76.7 acres of indirect 

impact (i.e., species avoidance effects) 

to wetland habitat. As currently 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
60106 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 

designed, the Proposed Project would 

have no temporary or permanent direct 

impacts to wetlands. 

Some of the Proposed Project 

components have been adjusted based 

on engineering and resource issues 

since the original surveys were 

completed; therefore, additional 

wetland delineations will be completed 

within impact areas after final design 

with the intent that all wetlands will be 

identified and avoided. Upon final 

design, if wetlands cannot be avoided, 

further coordination will occur between 

Basin Electric and the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers (USACE). Basin Electric 

would obtain the necessary permit(s) 

under Section 404 of the Clean Water 

Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and mitigate for 

impacts prior to construction. 

A similar wetland delineation process 

will be conducted for the Wind 

Partners’ proposed development, prior 

to the start of construction, in 

accordance with USACE standard 

protocols to identify and avoid 

wetlands. If final engineering results in 

layout modifications, then additional 

delineations will be performed within 

the final impact areas to identify 

wetlands that require minor project 

facility re-routes such that wetlands will 

be avoided. Although not anticipated, if 

impacts to wetlands (including 

jurisdictional waters of the U.S. 

[collectively termed ‘‘wetlands’’]) are 

unavoidable, then Basin Electric would 

obtain a section 404 Permit through the 

USACE. 

Comments on Final EIS 

Western received comments from the 

EPA in a letter dated August 26, 2010, 

and comments from the USFWS through 

the U.S. Department of the Interior 

(DOI) in a letter dated August 27, 2010. 

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 Proposed Project or Wind 

Partners’ proposed development or 

associated impacts, and thus a 

Supplemental EIS is not required. The 

basis for this determination is 

summarized below. 

EPA noted that the Final EIS 

addressed many of their concerns on the 

Draft EIS, including cumulative impacts 

and protection of wetlands. 

Additionally, EPA recommended that 

the ROD require that wetlands be 

avoided and describe how this will be 

implemented; outline how Basin 

Electric will comply with the State’s 

construction stormwater permit and 

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 

requirements; and outline how roads 

and project features will be maintained 

to minimize or prevent erosion and/or 

stormwater runoff. Basin Electric has 

committed to avoiding wetlands and has 

modified the locations of Proposed 

Project components in accordance with 

this commitment (see above for wetland 

determination). The State of South 

Dakota issued Basin Electric a General 

Permit for Storm Water Discharges 

Associated with Construction Activities 

on July 30, 2010. Basin Electric will 

comply with this and all other State and 

Federal laws and regulations. Basin 

Electric has conducted geotechnical 

investigations and will consider 

compaction requirements for backfill, 

depth to the saturated zone, slope, 

erosion potential, and other similar 

factors in the engineering design of 

roadways and other project area 

features. Grading, drainage, roadway, 

and other project area feature designs 

will be engineered to manage runoff, 

and minimize/prevent erosion. Longterm stability of restored temporary 

disturbance areas and areas with 

permanent installations will be 

managed in accordance with the APMs 

and BMPs. 

DOI’s letter provided the following 

recommended corrections and offsetting 

measures: correct and clarify acres of 

affected habitat (wetland easements); 

prepare a voluntary Avian and Bat 

Protection Plan (ABPP) in coordination 

with USFWS; and include recurring 

costs of managing habitat offset lands. 

The following provides clarification on 

the potential impacts to USFWS 

wetland and grassland easements. The 

Final EIS correctly notes that the 

USFWS administers wetland easements 

within 15 parcels in the Crow Lake 

Alternative. Geospatial data for the 

locations of wetland easements was 

obtained from USFWS; per this data, the 

agencies included the entire area of the 

parcels in their assessment of wetland 

easement area estimates (2,718 acres 

within the project boundary or 2,836 

acres including the full area for those 

parcels that are bisected by the project 

boundary). DOI’s letter provided 

clarification that the wetland easements 

pertain only to the protected wetland 

basins within a portion of these parcels 

and portions of the parcels containing 

wetland easements are actually 

unprotected upland areas. Components 

of the Proposed Project and Wind 

Partners’ proposed development located 

within parcels containing USFWS 

wetland easements would be located in 

the unprotected upland areas of these 

parcels. The correct impact estimate is 

that, while there would be a temporary 

impact of 120 acres and a permanent 

impact of 22 acres within the 

unprotected upland portions of parcels 

containing wetland easements, the 

Proposed Project and Wind Partners’ 

proposed development would result in 

no temporary or permanent impacts to 

USFWS wetland easements. As stated in 

the Biological Opinion, ‘‘Refuges has 

worked with Basin and has determined 

that there are sites for project facilities 

that would have an acceptably minimal 

impact on the wildlife resources of the 

area.’’ 

The DOI letter provided a 

recommendation that an ABPP be 

prepared in coordination with USFWS 

before project operations commence and 

that the ABPP provide a process 

whereby the results of the OMP, ‘‘will be 

used to identify and incorporate, to the 

extent practicable, measures to 

minimize bird and bat mortality.’’ DOI 

also noted that an ABPP and Adaptive 

Management Plan were identified 

during prior stages of EIS development, 

but were excluded from the Final EIS. 

As stated in Appendix F of the Final EIS 

(Comment and Response), the term 

ABPP was used incorrectly in the Draft 

EIS and was replaced with the OMP, 

which is specific to the Proposed Project 

and Wind Partners’ proposed 

development, in the Final EIS. Basin 

Electric is preparing an ABPP per the 

Avian Protection Plan Guidelines, 

developed in part by USFWS. The ABPP 

is a corporate level document that is not 

specific to the Proposed Project and is 

not yet complete. The OMP contains 

project-specific construction 

requirements, post-construction 

monitoring, and reporting requirements. 

Furthermore, Basin Electric has 

committed to identify potential effects 

of the Proposed Project and Wind 

Partners’ proposed development on 

birds and bats and to use the results of 

their 3-year Bird and Bat Fatality 

Monitoring from the OMP to identify 

and incorporate, to the extent 

practicable, measures to minimize bird 

and bat mortality. 

The DOI letter also provided a 

recommendation to ensure that all lands 

for both temporary and permanent 

habitat impacts are offset and include a 

source of funds for both acquisition and 

recurring management. The agencies 

and Basin Electric had discussions with 

USFWS on April 6, 2010, regarding 

compensatory mitigation and habitat 

offsets. Through a voluntary process, 

Basin Electric included conservation 

measures to offset indirect impacts to 

wetland and grassland habitat; the 

offsets included compensation for 76.7 

acres of wetland habitat and 675 acres 

of grassland habitat and were developed 

in coordination with the USFWS. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2010 / Notices 60107 

1Western’s authority to issue a record of decision 

for integrating transmission facilities is pursuant to 

authority delegated on October 4, 1999, from the 

Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and 

Health to Western’s Administrator. 

Decision 

Western’s decision is to allow Basin 

Electric’s requests for interconnection at 

the Wessington Springs Substation in 

South Dakota and to complete 

modifications to the substation to 

support the interconnections.1

Western’s decision to grant these 

interconnection requests satisfies the 

agency’s statutory mission and Basin 

Electric’s objectives while minimizing 

harm to the environment. Two 

interconnection agreements will be 

executed in accordance with Western’s 

Tariff. 

Basin Electric has committed to 

minimize the Proposed Project and 

Wind Partners’ proposed development 

impact on the environment through 

design and incorporation of APMs, 

BMPS, OMP, and voluntary 

conservation measures for habitat offsets 

as described in Chapter 2 of the Final 

EIS and summarized above. The 

Proposed Project and Wind Partner’s 

proposed development employ all 

practicable means to avoid or minimize 

environmental harm. Furthermore, 

Basin Electric has committed to use the 

results of their 3-year Bird and Bat 

Fatality Monitoring from the OMP to 

identify and incorporate, to the extent 

practicable, measures to minimize bird 

and bat mortality. Western will adhere 

to its own standard mitigation measures 

for all modifications within Wessington 

Springs Substation. Western will ensure 

that the stipulations of the MOU are 

executed in support of section 106 of 

the NHPA in carrying out its decision. 

This decision is based on the 

information contained in the South 

Dakota PrairieWinds Project Final EIS 

(DOE/EIS–0418). The EIS and this ROD 

were prepared pursuant to the 

requirements of the Council on 

Environmental Quality Regulations for 

Implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 

1500–1508), DOE Procedures for 

Implementing NEPA (10 CFR Part 1021), 

and DOE’s Floodplain/Wetland Review 

Requirements (10 CFR Part 1022). Full 

implementation of this decision is 

contingent upon the Proposed Project 

and Wind Partners’ proposed 

development obtaining all applicable 

permits and approvals. 

Dated: September 21, 2010. 

Timothy J. Meeks, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24388 Filed 9–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0682; FRL–9207–9] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request; Information 

Collection Request for Petroleum 

Refinery Sector New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) and 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

Residual Risk and Technology Review; 

EPA ICR No. 2411.01, OMB Control 

No. 2060—NEW 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, this action 

announces that EPA is planning to 

submit a new Information Collection 

Request to the Office of Management 

and Budget. Before submitting the 

Information Collection Request to the 

Office of Management and Budget for 

review and approval, EPA is soliciting 

comments on specific aspects of the 

proposed information collection as 

described below. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before November 29, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0682, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov. 

• Phone: (202) 566–1742. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. 

• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 28221T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Room 3334, EPA West Building, 1301 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20004. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Docket’s normal 

hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0682. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an e-mail 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Bob Lucas, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (E143–01), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 

telephone number: (919) 541–0884; 

fax number: (919) 541–0246; e-mail 

address: lucas.bob@epa.gov; or 

Ms. Brenda Shine, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (E143–01), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 

telephone number: (919) 541–3608; fax 

number: (919) 541–0246; e-mail 

address: shine.brenda@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

How can I access the docket and/or 

submit comments? 

EPA has established a public docket 

for this Information Collection Request 

(ICR) under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0682, which is available for 

online viewing at www.regulations.gov, 

or in person viewing at the Air and 

Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket 

Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 

3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public 

Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES