Highwood Generating Station Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), 28667-28669 [E7-9817]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 22, 2007 / Notices
day comment period so that comments
and objections are made available to the
Forest Service at a time when it can
meaningfully consider them and
respond to them in the final
environmental impact statement.
To assist the Forest Service in
identifying and considering issues and
concerns on the proposed action,
comments on the draft environmental
impact statement should be as specific
as possible. It is also helpful if
comments refer to specific pages or
chapters of the draft statement.
Comments may also address the
adequacy of the draft environmental
impact statement or the merits of the
alternatives formulated and discussed in
the statement. Reviewers may wish to
refer to the Council on Environmental
Quality Regulations for implementing
the procedural provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act at 40
CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
Comments received, including the
names and addresses of those who
comment, will be considered part of the
public record on this proposal and will
be available for public inspection.
Dated: May 16, 2007.
Julie K. King,
Heber District Ranger.
[FR Doc. E7–9791 Filed 5–21–07; 8:45 am]
Dated: May 16, 2007.
Gloria Manning,
Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest
System.
[FR Doc. E7–9818 Filed 5–21–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
BILLING CODE 3410–11–P
Roadless Area Conservation National
Advisory Committee
Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jessica Call, Roadless Area Conservation
18:21 May 21, 2007
Jkt 211001
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Rural Utilities Service
SUMMARY: The Roadless Area
Conservation National Advisory
Committee (Committee) will meet in
Washington, DC. The purpose of this
meeting is to review the petition
submitted by the Governor of Colorado
for state specific rulemaking for
inventoried roadless area management
in the State of Colorado under the
authority of the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(e) and 7
CFR 1.28 and to discuss other related
roadless area matters.
DATES: The meeting will be held June 13
to June 14, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
each day.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the Forest Service’s Yates Building at
201 14th Street, SW., Washington, DC
20250.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
National Advisory Committee
(RACNAC) Coordinator, at
jessicacall@fs.fed.us or (202) 205–1056,
USDA Forest Service, 1400
Independence Avenue, SW., Mailstop
1104, Washington, DC 20250.
Individuals who use
telecommunication devices for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern
Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
meeting is open to the public and
interested parties are invited to attend;
building security requires you to
provide your name to the RACNAC
Coordinator (contact information listed
above) by June 8, 2007. You will need
photo identification to enter the
building.
While meeting discussion is limited
to Forest Service staff and Committee
members, the public will be allowed to
offer written and oral comments for the
Committee’s consideration. Attendees
wishing to comment orally will be
allotted a specific amount of time to
speak during a public comment period
at the end of the first day’s agenda. To
offer oral comment, please contact the
RACNAC Coordinator at the contact
number above.
Highwood Generating Station
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice of availability of record
of decision (ROD).
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Rural
Electrification Act of 1936, the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), and the Montana
Environmental Policy Act, the Rural
Utilities Service (RUS), an Agency
delivering the United States Department
of Agriculture’s (USDA) Rural
Development Utilities Programs,
hereinafter referred to as Rural
Development and/or Agency, and the
Montana Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) announce the availability
of the ROD for the EIS for the Highwood
Generating Station (HGS), proposed to
be located near Great Falls, Montana.
The Administrator, Utilities Programs,
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28667
USDA Rural Development, and the
Director, DEQ, have signed the ROD,
which is effective upon signing.
ADDRESSES: To obtain copies of the HGS
ROD, or for further information, contact:
Richard Fristik, Senior Environmental
Protection Specialist, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Rural Development
Utilities Programs, 1400 Independence
Ave., SW, Stop 1571, Washington, DC
20250, phone (202) 720–5093
(richard.fristik@wdc.usda.gov);
or,Kathleen Johnson, Environmental
Impact Specialist, Montana Department
of Environmental Quality, P. O. Box
200901, Helena MT 59620–0901, phone
406–444–1760 (katjohnson@mt.us). A
copy of the ROD can be viewed online
at: https://www.usda.gov/rus/water/ees/
eis.htm#Southern%20Montana%
20Electric%20Cooperative,%20Inc and
https://www.deq.mt.gov/eis.asp.
The document is in a portable
document format (pdf); in order to
review or print the document, users
need to obtain a free copy of Acrobat
Reader. The Acrobat Reader can be
obtained from https://www.adobe.com/
prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Southern Montana Electric Generation
and Transmission Cooperative,
Incorporated (SME) proposes to build
and operate a 250 (net) megawatt (MW),
Circulating Fluidized Bed (CFB), coalfired electric power plant—called the
Highwood Generating Station (HGS)—
and 6 MW of wind generation at a site
near Great Falls, Montana. SME will
lose its principal supply of power from
the Bonneville Power Administration
beginning in part in 2008 and in full in
2011; thus, the purpose and need of the
proposal is for SME to replace that
power supply with another source of
reliable, long-term, affordable electric
energy and related services in order to
fulfill its obligations to its member rural
electric cooperatives. In order to meet
the projected electric power deficit,
SME formally applied to Rural
Development in 2004 for a loan
guarantee for the construction of an
electric generating source, the proposed
HGS, and related transmission facilities.
In September 2005, SME submitted a
draft air quality permit application to
DEQ and formally applied for an air
quality permit in November 2005. The
application was reviewed and a draft
preliminary determination (PD) was
released for public review and comment
on March 30, 2006. Comments on the
draft PD resulted in a supplemental PD
that was included in the Draft and Final
EIS. A solid waste management license
application was submitted to the DEQ
on March 20, 2006. In accordance with
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
28668
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 22, 2007 / Notices
the NEPA and the Montana
Environmental Policy Act and
applicable agency regulations, the DEQ
and Rural Development have prepared
an EIS to assess the potential
environmental impacts associated with
the proposed HGS. The decision being
documented in this ROD is that Rural
Development agrees to participate,
subject to loan approval, in the funding
of the HGS at the Salem site. The DEQ’s
decisions include the approval of SME’s
air quality permit application and solid
waste management license. More details
regarding each agency’s regulatory
authority, rationale for the decisions,
and compliance with applicable
regulations are included in the ROD.
Though Rural Development and DEQ
were co-leads in preparation of the EIS,
and the ROD is signed by both agencies,
it is not necessary for DEQ to sign this
notice.
Lists of various alternatives were
evaluated for generation source/
technology, facility location, water
supply and wastewater, and
appurtenant facilities. Alternatives
eliminated from detailed study were, by
category: Generation Source/
Technology—power purchase
agreements, wind energy, solar energy,
hydropower, geothermal energy,
biomass, biogas, municipal solid waste,
natural gas combined cycle,
microturbines, pulverized coal,
integrated gasification combined cycle,
oil, nuclear power, and two
combinations of renewable and nonrenewable sources. Facility Location—
outstate, the Decker, Hysham, and
Nelson Creek sites; and in the Great
Falls area, the Sun River, Manchester,
Malmstrom, and Section 36 sites. Water
Supply and Wastewater at the preferred
site—importing bottled water, drinking
water wells drilled on-site, additional
(Missouri) river diversion, directly
discharging wastewater into the
Missouri River, and disposing of
sanitary wastewater in a septic system.
Appurtenant Facilities at the preferred
site—two alternate railroad spur
alignments, and hauling ash to the High
Plains landfill.
Three alternatives were evaluated in
detail in the Draft and Final EIS: (1) The
No Action Alternative; (2) The Proposed
Action, a 250-MW CFB, coal-fired
power plant—the HGS—and four 1.5MW wind turbines at the Salem site;
and (3) A 250-MW CFB plant and no
wind turbines at an alternative site
north of Great Falls, called the
Industrial Park site. The agency’s
preferred alternative is (2), the Proposed
Action. The No Action Alternative does
not meet the proposal’s purpose and
need. It would distribute and perhaps
disperse environmental impacts from
electricity generation to meet SME’s
customer’s needs to other locations in
the American and Canadian West. The
No Action Alternative would expose
SME, its members and customers to
higher prices by purchasing power on
the volatile open electric market. The
Industrial Park alternative would meet
the proposal’s purpose and need and
provide similar benefits as the Proposed
Action, but it has disadvantages
compared to the Salem site.
Disadvantages of the site include
increases in local rail and truck traffic
due to coal delivery through the City of
Great Falls and hauling fly ash to the
nearby landfill, presenting greater
potential for increased traffic delays
and/or accidents. Its proximity to other
industrial and residential sources
presents potential challenges in air
quality permitting as well as noise. The
disposal of fly ash at the landfill will
shorten the landfill’s life requiring
expansion of that facility or
development of another facility to meet
the solid waste needs for Cascade
County. The Industrial Park site also is
not large enough to accommodate
ancillary wind power development.
Fourteen resources or areas of concern
that could potentially be affected
emerged from the scoping process and
agency discussions, or are required to be
evaluated by law or regulation. These
issues, and the means by which they
were evaluated, are summarized on
Pages 1–25 to 1–29 in the Final EIS. The
following table summarizes the impact
conclusions by resource and site.
Resource/issue
Salem site
Industrial Park Site
Soils and Topography ......................
Moderate, short-term impacts due to construction;
permanent increase in impermeable surface
area; minor, long-term impacts due to waste
monofill.
Negligible construction impacts to receiving water
quality; minor impacts on Missouri River flows
from water withdrawals.
Short-term construction impacts; long-term minor to
moderate impacts due to release of criteria pollutants, Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP), Green
House Gases (GHG), visual plume and haze.
Moderate, short-term impacts due to construction;
permanent increase in impermeable surface
area.
Water Resources ..............................
Air Quality .........................................
Biological Resources ........................
Recreation ........................................
Cultural Resources/Historic Properties.
Visual Resources ..............................
Minor, short-term construction impacts to terrestrial
and aquatic biota, vegetation; minor long-term
impact from rail/traffic collisions.
Minor to moderate, short-term construction impacts;
minor long-term impact from train traffic, plant operation; significant impacts to National Historic
Landmark (NHL).
Negligible to minor impacts ......................................
Adverse effect to NHL; no impact to archeological
resources.
Significant impact/adverse effect to NHL .................
Transportation ...................................
Short-term, moderate construction impacts ..............
Farmland and Land Use ...................
Permanent loss of farmland; moderate, long-term
impact on land use/property values.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Noise ................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:21 May 21, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Negligible construction impacts to receiving water
quality; minor impacts on Missouri River flows
from water withdrawals.
Short-term construction impacts; long-term minor to
moderate impacts due to release of criteria pollutants, HAPs, GHGs, visual plume and haze.
Potential adverse cumulative and local impacts
due to proximity to other industries, City of Great
Falls, and local residences.
Minor, short-term construction impacts to terrestrial
and aquatic biota, vegetation; minor long-term
impact from rail/traffic collisions.
Minor to moderate, short-term construction impacts;
minor long-term impact from train traffic, plant operation; greater number of residential receptors.
Negligible to minor impacts.
No impact to historic properties or archeological resources.
Negligible to minor impact to NHL; moderate impacts in localized area.
Short-term, moderate construction impacts; increased accident risk and traffic congestion due
to rail crossings in Great Falls and truck transportation of ash.
Minor, long-term impact on land use/property values.
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 22, 2007 / Notices
28669
Resource/issue
Salem site
Industrial Park Site
Waste Management .........................
Minor, medium-term construction impacts; moderate, long-term operation impacts.
Human Health and Safety ................
Minor construction-related impacts; minor, longterm operation impacts.
Minor to moderately beneficial impacts ....................
No impact ..................................................................
Minor, medium-term construction impacts; minor to
moderate operation impacts; possible capacity
issues with use of Great Falls landfill.
Minor construction-related impacts; increased risk
for traffic-related accidents.
Minor to moderately beneficial impacts.
Minor to moderate, long-term impact on low-income
residents.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Socioeconomics ...............................
Environmental Justice/Protection of
Children.
Five-hundred forty-three (543) letters,
postcards, and e-mails were received in
response to the Final EIS. Comments
received were grouped into 55
categories or themes, and resulted in
just over 2300 comments spread over
these categories. Approximately 20
percent of the comments simply
expressed either opposition or support
of the proposal, though the
overwhelming majority of these were in
opposition. Of the remaining comments,
almost half dealt with the following
issues or concerns: greenhouse gas
emissions/global warming/carbon
capture and sequestration; renewable
sources/conservation; air pollution in
general; mercury/toxic emissions;
outdated generation technology/dirty
fuel; EIS inadequate; adverse effect to
Great Falls Portage NHL; and, waste of
scarce water resources. A complete
summary of the comments is attached to
the ROD. Though comments were not
responded to individually, six
substantive issues were addressed
briefly in the ROD: Rural Development
authority to make a loan guarantee for
the proposal; financial analysis of the
proposal; future carbon regulation;
carbon capture and sequestration;
renewable energy sources and
conservation; and, water use, quality
and quantity.
Based on an evaluation of the
information and impact analyses
presented in the EIS including the
evaluation of all alternatives and in
consideration of Agency environmental
policies and procedures (7 CFR part
1794), Rural Development found that
the evaluation of reasonable alternatives
is consistent with the NEPA. The
Agency selects the Salem site as its
preferred alternative. This concludes the
Agency’s compliance with NEPA and
the Agency’s environmental policies
and procedures. A review and analysis
of the proposal’s justification, associated
engineering studies, and preliminary
financial information have been
reviewed and the Agency concurs in the
proposal’s purpose and need. The
proposal would have an adverse effect
on the Great Falls Portage NHL. Prior to
the approval of the expenditure of
Federal funds, the National Historic
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:21 May 21, 2007
Jkt 211001
PreservationAct (NHPA), Section 106
process must conclude in accordance
with 36 CFR part 800.Ongoing
discussions are being conducted with
all consulting parties concerning a
resolution of adverse effects with the
goal of concluding the Section 106
process with the execution of a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
with the required parties. Once
executed, the MOA will be integrated as
a condition of the approval of the
expenditure of Federal funds. Approval
is contingent on SME obtaining and
complying with all applicable local,
State and Federal permits,
implementing in good faith all
mitigation measures and
recommendations in the Final EIS and
Biological Assessment, and continuing
to participate in good faith as a
consulting party in the NHPA Section
106 process and implementing all
measures agreed to by the signatories to
the MOA addressing the adverse effect
to the Great Falls Portage NHL. This
decision is in compliance with
applicable statutory, regulatory and
policy mandates, including the NEPA,
the Endangered Species Act (ESA),
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
requirements, and the NHPA.
Dated: May 16, 2007.
James M. Andrew,
Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.
[FR Doc. E7–9817 Filed 5–21–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Rural Utilities Service
Announcement of Grant and Loan
Application Deadlines and
FundingLevels
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of funding availability
and solicitation of applications.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Rural Utilities Service, an
agency which administers USDA Rural
Development Utilities Programs (USDA
Rural Development or the ‘‘Agency’’)
announces the Fiscal Year (FY) funding
levels available for its Revolving Fund
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Program (RFP) grant. In addition, USDA
Rural Development announces the
maximum amounts for RFP grants
applicable for the fiscal year 2007 and
the solicitation of applications.
DATES: You may submit completed
applications for the Revolving Fund
Program’s grant from May 22, 2007 until
June 21, 2007.
Reminder of competitive grant
application deadline: Applications must
be mailed, shipped or submitted
electronically through Grants.gov no
later than June 21, 2007, to be eligible
for FY 2007 grant funding.
ADDRESSES: You may obtain application
guides and materials for the RFP
program via the Internet at the USDA
Rural Development Water and
Environmental Programs (WEP) Web
site: https://www.usda.gov/rus/water/
index.htm. You may also request
application guides and materials from
USDA Rural Development by contacting
Anita O’Brien at (202) 690–3789.
Submit completed paper applications
for RFP grant to the Rural Development
Utilities Programs, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave.,
SW., Room 2233, STOP 1570,
Washington, DC 20250–1570.
Applications should be marked
‘‘Attention: Assistant Administrator,
Water and Environmental Programs.’’
Submit electronic grant applications
at https://www.grants.gov (Grants.gov)
and follow the instructions you find on
that Web site.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anita O’Brien, Loan Specialist, Water
Program Division, USDA Rural
Development Utilities Programs;
Telephone: (202) 690–3789, fax: (202)
690–0649.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Overview
Federal Agency: Rural Utilities
Service (RUS).
Funding Opportunity Title: Grant
Program to Establish a Fund for
Financing Water and Wastewater
Projects (Revolving Fund Program
(RFP)).
Announcement Type: Funding Level
Announcement, and Solicitation of
Applications.
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28667-28669]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9817]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Rural Utilities Service
Highwood Generating Station Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of availability of record of decision (ROD).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), and the Montana
Environmental Policy Act, the Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an Agency
delivering the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Rural
Development Utilities Programs, hereinafter referred to as Rural
Development and/or Agency, and the Montana Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) announce the availability of the ROD for the EIS for the
Highwood Generating Station (HGS), proposed to be located near Great
Falls, Montana. The Administrator, Utilities Programs, USDA Rural
Development, and the Director, DEQ, have signed the ROD, which is
effective upon signing.
ADDRESSES: To obtain copies of the HGS ROD, or for further information,
contact: Richard Fristik, Senior Environmental Protection Specialist,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Programs,
1400 Independence Ave., SW, Stop 1571, Washington, DC 20250, phone
(202) 720-5093 (richard.fristik@wdc.usda.gov); or, Kathleen Johnson,
Environmental Impact Specialist, Montana Department of Environmental
Quality, P. O. Box 200901, Helena MT 59620-0901, phone 406-444-1760
(katjohnson@mt.us). A copy of the ROD can be viewed online at: https://
www.usda.gov/rus/water/ees/
eis.htm#Southern%20Montana%20Electric%20Cooperative,%20Inc and https://
www.deq.mt.gov/eis.asp.
The document is in a portable document format (pdf); in order to
review or print the document, users need to obtain a free copy of
Acrobat Reader. The Acrobat Reader can be obtained from https://
www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Southern Montana Electric Generation and
Transmission Cooperative, Incorporated (SME) proposes to build and
operate a 250 (net) megawatt (MW), Circulating Fluidized Bed (CFB),
coal-fired electric power plant--called the Highwood Generating Station
(HGS)--and 6 MW of wind generation at a site near Great Falls, Montana.
SME will lose its principal supply of power from the Bonneville Power
Administration beginning in part in 2008 and in full in 2011; thus, the
purpose and need of the proposal is for SME to replace that power
supply with another source of reliable, long-term, affordable electric
energy and related services in order to fulfill its obligations to its
member rural electric cooperatives. In order to meet the projected
electric power deficit, SME formally applied to Rural Development in
2004 for a loan guarantee for the construction of an electric
generating source, the proposed HGS, and related transmission
facilities. In September 2005, SME submitted a draft air quality permit
application to DEQ and formally applied for an air quality permit in
November 2005. The application was reviewed and a draft preliminary
determination (PD) was released for public review and comment on March
30, 2006. Comments on the draft PD resulted in a supplemental PD that
was included in the Draft and Final EIS. A solid waste management
license application was submitted to the DEQ on March 20, 2006. In
accordance with
[[Page 28668]]
the NEPA and the Montana Environmental Policy Act and applicable agency
regulations, the DEQ and Rural Development have prepared an EIS to
assess the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed
HGS. The decision being documented in this ROD is that Rural
Development agrees to participate, subject to loan approval, in the
funding of the HGS at the Salem site. The DEQ's decisions include the
approval of SME's air quality permit application and solid waste
management license. More details regarding each agency's regulatory
authority, rationale for the decisions, and compliance with applicable
regulations are included in the ROD. Though Rural Development and DEQ
were co-leads in preparation of the EIS, and the ROD is signed by both
agencies, it is not necessary for DEQ to sign this notice.
Lists of various alternatives were evaluated for generation source/
technology, facility location, water supply and wastewater, and
appurtenant facilities. Alternatives eliminated from detailed study
were, by category: Generation Source/Technology--power purchase
agreements, wind energy, solar energy, hydropower, geothermal energy,
biomass, biogas, municipal solid waste, natural gas combined cycle,
microturbines, pulverized coal, integrated gasification combined cycle,
oil, nuclear power, and two combinations of renewable and non-renewable
sources. Facility Location--outstate, the Decker, Hysham, and Nelson
Creek sites; and in the Great Falls area, the Sun River, Manchester,
Malmstrom, and Section 36 sites. Water Supply and Wastewater at the
preferred site--importing bottled water, drinking water wells drilled
on-site, additional (Missouri) river diversion, directly discharging
wastewater into the Missouri River, and disposing of sanitary
wastewater in a septic system. Appurtenant Facilities at the preferred
site--two alternate railroad spur alignments, and hauling ash to the
High Plains landfill.
Three alternatives were evaluated in detail in the Draft and Final
EIS: (1) The No Action Alternative; (2) The Proposed Action, a 250-MW
CFB, coal-fired power plant--the HGS--and four 1.5-MW wind turbines at
the Salem site; and (3) A 250-MW CFB plant and no wind turbines at an
alternative site north of Great Falls, called the Industrial Park site.
The agency's preferred alternative is (2), the Proposed Action. The No
Action Alternative does not meet the proposal's purpose and need. It
would distribute and perhaps disperse environmental impacts from
electricity generation to meet SME's customer's needs to other
locations in the American and Canadian West. The No Action Alternative
would expose SME, its members and customers to higher prices by
purchasing power on the volatile open electric market. The Industrial
Park alternative would meet the proposal's purpose and need and provide
similar benefits as the Proposed Action, but it has disadvantages
compared to the Salem site. Disadvantages of the site include increases
in local rail and truck traffic due to coal delivery through the City
of Great Falls and hauling fly ash to the nearby landfill, presenting
greater potential for increased traffic delays and/or accidents. Its
proximity to other industrial and residential sources presents
potential challenges in air quality permitting as well as noise. The
disposal of fly ash at the landfill will shorten the landfill's life
requiring expansion of that facility or development of another facility
to meet the solid waste needs for Cascade County. The Industrial Park
site also is not large enough to accommodate ancillary wind power
development.
Fourteen resources or areas of concern that could potentially be
affected emerged from the scoping process and agency discussions, or
are required to be evaluated by law or regulation. These issues, and
the means by which they were evaluated, are summarized on Pages 1-25 to
1-29 in the Final EIS. The following table summarizes the impact
conclusions by resource and site.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resource/issue Salem site Industrial Park Site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soils and Topography............... Moderate, short-term impacts due to Moderate, short-term impacts due to
construction; permanent increase in construction; permanent increase in
impermeable surface area; minor, impermeable surface area.
long-term impacts due to waste
monofill.
Water Resources.................... Negligible construction impacts to Negligible construction impacts to
receiving water quality; minor receiving water quality; minor
impacts on Missouri River flows from impacts on Missouri River flows
water withdrawals. from water withdrawals.
Air Quality........................ Short-term construction impacts; long- Short-term construction impacts;
term minor to moderate impacts due long-term minor to moderate impacts
to release of criteria pollutants, due to release of criteria
Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP), pollutants, HAPs, GHGs, visual
Green House Gases (GHG), visual plume and haze. Potential adverse
plume and haze. cumulative and local impacts due to
proximity to other industries, City
of Great Falls, and local
residences.
Biological Resources............... Minor, short-term construction Minor, short-term construction
impacts to terrestrial and aquatic impacts to terrestrial and aquatic
biota, vegetation; minor long-term biota, vegetation; minor long-term
impact from rail/traffic collisions. impact from rail/traffic
collisions.
Noise.............................. Minor to moderate, short-term Minor to moderate, short-term
construction impacts; minor long- construction impacts; minor long-
term impact from train traffic, term impact from train traffic,
plant operation; significant impacts plant operation; greater number of
to National Historic Landmark (NHL). residential receptors.
Recreation......................... Negligible to minor impacts.......... Negligible to minor impacts.
Cultural Resources/Historic Adverse effect to NHL; no impact to No impact to historic properties or
Properties. archeological resources. archeological resources.
Visual Resources................... Significant impact/adverse effect to Negligible to minor impact to NHL;
NHL. moderate impacts in localized area.
Transportation..................... Short-term, moderate construction Short-term, moderate construction
impacts. impacts; increased accident risk
and traffic congestion due to rail
crossings in Great Falls and truck
transportation of ash.
Farmland and Land Use.............. Permanent loss of farmland; moderate, Minor, long-term impact on land use/
long-term impact on land use/ property values.
property values.
[[Page 28669]]
Waste Management................... Minor, medium-term construction Minor, medium-term construction
impacts; moderate, long-term impacts; minor to moderate
operation impacts. operation impacts; possible
capacity issues with use of Great
Falls landfill.
Human Health and Safety............ Minor construction-related impacts; Minor construction-related impacts;
minor, long-term operation impacts. increased risk for traffic-related
accidents.
Socioeconomics..................... Minor to moderately beneficial Minor to moderately beneficial
impacts. impacts.
Environmental Justice/Protection of No impact............................ Minor to moderate, long-term impact
Children. on low-income residents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five-hundred forty-three (543) letters, postcards, and e-mails were
received in response to the Final EIS. Comments received were grouped
into 55 categories or themes, and resulted in just over 2300 comments
spread over these categories. Approximately 20 percent of the comments
simply expressed either opposition or support of the proposal, though
the overwhelming majority of these were in opposition. Of the remaining
comments, almost half dealt with the following issues or concerns:
greenhouse gas emissions/global warming/carbon capture and
sequestration; renewable sources/conservation; air pollution in
general; mercury/toxic emissions; outdated generation technology/dirty
fuel; EIS inadequate; adverse effect to Great Falls Portage NHL; and,
waste of scarce water resources. A complete summary of the comments is
attached to the ROD. Though comments were not responded to
individually, six substantive issues were addressed briefly in the ROD:
Rural Development authority to make a loan guarantee for the proposal;
financial analysis of the proposal; future carbon regulation; carbon
capture and sequestration; renewable energy sources and conservation;
and, water use, quality and quantity.
Based on an evaluation of the information and impact analyses
presented in the EIS including the evaluation of all alternatives and
in consideration of Agency environmental policies and procedures (7 CFR
part 1794), Rural Development found that the evaluation of reasonable
alternatives is consistent with the NEPA. The Agency selects the Salem
site as its preferred alternative. This concludes the Agency's
compliance with NEPA and the Agency's environmental policies and
procedures. A review and analysis of the proposal's justification,
associated engineering studies, and preliminary financial information
have been reviewed and the Agency concurs in the proposal's purpose and
need. The proposal would have an adverse effect on the Great Falls
Portage NHL. Prior to the approval of the expenditure of Federal funds,
the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Section 106 process must
conclude in accordance with 36 CFR part 800. Ongoing discussions are
being conducted with all consulting parties concerning a resolution of
adverse effects with the goal of concluding the Section 106 process
with the execution of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the required
parties. Once executed, the MOA will be integrated as a condition of
the approval of the expenditure of Federal funds. Approval is
contingent on SME obtaining and complying with all applicable local,
State and Federal permits, implementing in good faith all mitigation
measures and recommendations in the Final EIS and Biological
Assessment, and continuing to participate in good faith as a consulting
party in the NHPA Section 106 process and implementing all measures
agreed to by the signatories to the MOA addressing the adverse effect
to the Great Falls Portage NHL. This decision is in compliance with
applicable statutory, regulatory and policy mandates, including the
NEPA, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) requirements, and the NHPA.
Dated: May 16, 2007.
James M. Andrew,
Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.
[FR Doc. E7-9817 Filed 5-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-15-P
