Notice To Rescind a Notice of Intent for an Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Highway and Light Rail Improvements in the Sr 32 Corridor Between Us 50 and Ir 275 in Hamilton and Clermont Counties, Ohio, 65694-65695 [2016-22910]

Download as PDF sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 65694 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2016 / Notices Columbia Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 6.0000 mgd; Approval Date: July 21, 2016. 24. Talisman Energy USA Inc., Pad ID: 05 229 Acres, ABR–201108010.R1, Windham Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 6.0000 mgd; Approval Date: July 21, 2016. 25. Talisman Energy USA Inc., Pad ID: 05 164 Bennett, ABR–201107049.R1, Stevens Township, Bradford County and Rush Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 6.0000 mgd; Approval Date: July 25, 2016. 26. Talisman Energy USA Inc., Pad ID: 02 153 Mountain Run Hunting Club, ABR– 201107050.R1, Union Township, Tioga County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 6.0000 mgd; Approval Date: July 25, 2016. 27. Seneca Resources Corporation, Pad ID: DCNR 007 Pad K, ABR–201112018.R1, Delmar Township, Tioga County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.0000 mgd; Approval Date: July 25, 2016. 28. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Raimo, ABR–201201005.R1, Monroe and Overton Townships, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: July 26, 2016. 29. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Kathryn, ABR–201201006.R1, Wilmot Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: July 26, 2016. 30. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Ridenour, ABR–201201008.R1, Cherry Township, Sullivan County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: July 26, 2016. 31. Talisman Energy USA Inc., Pad ID: 05 008 Michnich, ABR–201108026.R1, Pike Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 6.0000 mgd; Approval Date: July 27, 2016. 32. Talisman Energy USA Inc., Pad ID: 03 074 Haralambous, ABR–201108037.R1, Columbia Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 6.0000 mgd; Approval Date: July 27, 2016. 33. Talisman Energy USA Inc., Pad ID: 05 104 Rennekamp R, ABR–201108044.R1, Pike Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 6.0000 mgd; Approval Date: July 27, 2016. 34. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Redbone, ABR–201201004.R1, Wilmot Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: July 28, 2016. 35. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Elwell, ABR–201201009.R1, Wilmot Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: July 28, 2016. 36. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Calmitch, ABR–201201029.R1, Wilmot Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: July 28, 2016. 37. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Manahan, ABR–201201036.R1, Albany Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: July 28, 2016. 38. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Sep 22, 2016 Jkt 238001 Messersmith, ABR–201201037.R1, Wilmot Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.5000 mgd; Approval Date: July 28, 2016. 39. Pennsylvania General Energy Co. LLC, Pad ID: COP Tract 356 Pad J, ABR– 201201014.R1, Cummings Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 3.0000 mgd; Approval Date: July 29, 2016. 40. Chief Oil & Gas LLC, Pad ID: Yonkin B Drilling Pad, ABR–201607003, Cherry Township, Sullivan County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 2.5000 mgd; Approval Date: July 29, 2016. Authority: Pub. L. 91–575, 84 Stat. 1509 et seq., 18 CFR parts 806, 807, and 808. Dated: September 19, 2016. Stephanie L. Richardson, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2016–22879 Filed 9–22–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7040–01–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Notice To Rescind a Notice of Intent for an Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Highway and Light Rail Improvements in the Sr 32 Corridor Between Us 50 and Ir 275 in Hamilton and Clermont Counties, Ohio Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. DOT. ACTION: Notice to rescind a Notice of Intent (NOI) for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). AGENCY: A Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement was published in the Federal Register on May 9, 2012. The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) is issuing this notice to advise the public that ODOT will no longer prepare a Tier 2 EIS for proposed improvements to SR 32 from US 50 in Hamilton County east to IR 275 in Clermont County, because of potential significant environmental impacts and public controversy. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy M. Hill, Administrator, ODOT Office of Environmental Services, 1980 West Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43223 Mail Stop #4170, Telephone: (614) 644–0377, Email: Tim.Hill@ dot.ohio.gov. SUMMARY: On September 30, 2005, a Tier 1 EIS was published in the Federal Register (77 FR 27272). This document evaluated transportation needs and focused on broad issues such as mode choice, general location, preliminary costs, benefits, and impacts within a study area known as the Eastern Corridor, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 extending from downtown Cincinnati to western Clermont County. A Tier 1 Record of Decision issued on June 2, 2006 identified feasible multi-modal components to be advanced by mode and segment into Tier 2 NEPA analyses, including a new rail transit corridor composed of four implementation segments, improved bus transit, various local network improvements, and a new highway capacity corridor composed of five implementation segments. In the interim, new information came to light regarding the archaeological resources present in connection with the Hahn Archaeological District. The discovery of this information prompted a reevaluation of the Tier 1 ROD to determine if the decision contained there-in remained valid and if a Supplemental EIS should be prepared prior to moving into a Tier 2 EIS. On February 9, 2012 FHWA recommended advancing the project into a Tier 2 EIS as the appropriate level of study and analysis to determine the significance of impacts to archaeological sites. Recognizing the complex interests associated with the SR 32 Relocation Project, ODOT and FHWA in 2013 engaged the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (USIECR) and a facilitation team as neutral, outside entities. Their purpose was to review the project and carry out a collaborative process to help inform future decisions on the feasibility of project development continuing on this project. The study identified key stakeholder interests associated with the SR 32 Relocation Project from their interviews, including the need to: Improve transportation safety and efficiency; protect the natural environment; facilitate regional economic development; protect quality of life issues; be fiscally responsible and allocate limited dollars to the most pressing needs; safeguard historic and archeological resources; and make decisions in a reasonable timeframe. Their situation assessment presented eight options to consider in deciding whether and how to move ahead with the SR 32 Project. These ranged from not proceeding with the project at this time to proceeding as planned to fulfill NEPA, with various options in between that considered reframing/rethinking aspects of the project. In conjunction with the situation assessment process, FHWA and ODOT coordinated with nine federally-recognized tribes, state/ federal resource/regulatory agencies and extensive coordination with the public and area stakeholders. Upon deliberation of the options to move forward, ODOT concluded that the E:\FR\FM\23SEN1.SGM 23SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2016 / Notices sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES original new alignment Tier 1 corridors for Segment II/III were deemed not reasonable due to their potential for significant environmental impacts and extensive public controversy. ODOT is moving forward with the project development process to consider alternatives that have the potential for lower overall impacts, focusing on improvements to existing transportation corridors rather than new alignments through this environmentally complex area. Alignment alternatives on existing SR 32, US 50 and other roadways could include: Adding turn lanes, interchange improvements, widening to enhance capacity; minor realignments; improving signal timing and/or coordination; installing new signal(s); and other improvements. If any of these improvements require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, future Notices of Intent may be filed. The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried-out by ODOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated December 11, 2015, and executed by FHWA and ODOT. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.) actions relate to the proposed Interstate 495 (Long Island Expressway) Rest Area Upgrade Project between Exits 51 & 52 (eastbound) in the Town of Huntington, Suffolk County, New York (NYSDOT Project Identification Number: 0229.14). Those actions rescind the Record of Decision (ROD) and the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) dated May 21, 2007. The ROD was signed by FHWA on August 6, 2007. By this notice, FHWA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions on the highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before 150 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. DATES: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Osborn, Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, New York Division, Leo W. O’Brien Federal Building, Suite 719, Clinton Avenue and North Pearl Street, Albany, New York 12207. Telephone (518) 431–4127 Notice is hereby given that FHWA has taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by issuing a Rescission of the Record of Decision and a Rescission of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed Interstate 495 (Long Island Expressway) Rest Area Upgrade Project between Exits 51 & 52 (eastbound) in the Town of Huntington, Suffolk County, New York. The FHWA, as the lead Federal agency, in cooperation with the New York State Department of Transportation Issued on: September 6, 2016. (NYSDOT) signed a ROD on August 6, Robert L. Griffith, 2007, for the proposed Interstate 495 Acting Division Administrator, Federal (Long Island Expressway) Rest Area Highway Administration, Columbus, Ohio. Upgrade Project between Exits 51 & 52 [FR Doc. 2016–22910 Filed 9–22–16; 8:45 am] (eastbound). The proposed project BILLING CODE 4910–22–P evaluated alternatives for upgrading the existing rest area for cars and trucks DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION located on I–495/LIE eastbound between Exits 51 and 52. Since the ROD was signed, NYSDOT notified FHWA that Federal Highway Administration Federal funds will not be utilized Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions during the final design and construction on Proposed Interstate 495 (Long of the project. Therefore, FHWA has Island Expressway) Rest Area Upgrade determined that the ROD and the Final Project Between Exits 51 & 52 Environmental Impact Statement dated (Eastbound) in the Town of May 21, 2007, will be rescinded since Huntington, Suffolk County, New York there will be no Federal action, and the requirements of the National AGENCY: Federal Highway Environmental Policy Act pursuant to Administration (FHWA), DOT. 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. and 23 Code of ACTION: Notice of Limitation on Claims Federal Regulations 771 no longer for Judicial Review of Actions by apply. FHWA. This notice applies to all Federal SUMMARY: This notice announces actions agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which taken by FHWA and other Federal such actions were taken, including but agencies that are final within the not limited to: meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). The VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Sep 22, 2016 Jkt 238001 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 65695 1. General: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321– 4351]; Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 U.S.C. 109 and 23 U.S.C. 128]. 2. Air: Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401– 7671(q)]. 3. Land: Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303]; Landscaping and Scenic Enhancement (Wildflowers) [23 U.S.C. 319]. 4. Wildlife: Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1531–1544 and Section 1536]; Marine Mammal Protection Act [16 U.S.C. 1361]; Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [16 U.S.C. 661– 667(d)]; Migratory Bird Treaty Act [16 U.S.C. 703–712]. 5. Historic and Cultural Resources: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 470(f) et seq.]; Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1977 [16 U.S.C. 470(aa)–470(ll)]; Archeological and Historic Preservation Act [16 U.S.C. 469–469(c)]; Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) [25 U.S.C. 3001–3013]. 6. Social and Economic: Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000(d)– 2000(d)(1)]; American Indian Religious Freedom Act [42 U.S.C. 1996]; Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) [7 U.S.C. 4201–4209]. 7. Wetlands and Water Resources: Clean Water Act (Section 404, Section 401, Section 319) [33 U.S.C. 1251– 1377]; Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) [16 U.S.C. 4601–4604]; Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) [42 U.S.C. 300(f)–300(j)(6)]; Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 [33 U.S.C. 401– 406]; Wild and Scenic Rivers Act [16 U.S.C. 1271–1287]; Emergency Wetlands Resources Act, [16 U.S.C. 3921, 3931]; Wetlands Mitigation [23 U.S.C. 103(b)(6)(M) and 133(b)(11)]; Flood Disaster Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. 4001–4128. 8. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990 Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988 Floodplain Management; E.O. 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations; E.O. 11593 Protection and Enhancement of Cultural Resources; E.O. 13007 Indian Sacred Sites; E.O. 13287 Preserve America; E.O. 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments; E.O. 11514 Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality; E.O. 13112 Invasive Species. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on E:\FR\FM\23SEN1.SGM 23SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 185 (Friday, September 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65694-65695]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22910]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration


Notice To Rescind a Notice of Intent for an Environmental Impact 
Statement for Proposed Highway and Light Rail Improvements in the Sr 32 
Corridor Between Us 50 and Ir 275 in Hamilton and Clermont Counties, 
Ohio

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. DOT.

ACTION: Notice to rescind a Notice of Intent (NOI) for an Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: A Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact 
Statement was published in the Federal Register on May 9, 2012. The 
Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) is issuing this notice to 
advise the public that ODOT will no longer prepare a Tier 2 EIS for 
proposed improvements to SR 32 from US 50 in Hamilton County east to IR 
275 in Clermont County, because of potential significant environmental 
impacts and public controversy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy M. Hill, Administrator, ODOT 
Office of Environmental Services, 1980 West Broad Street, Columbus, 
Ohio 43223 Mail Stop #4170, Telephone: (614) 644-0377, Email: 
Tim.Hill@dot.ohio.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 30, 2005, a Tier 1 EIS was 
published in the Federal Register (77 FR 27272). This document 
evaluated transportation needs and focused on broad issues such as mode 
choice, general location, preliminary costs, benefits, and impacts 
within a study area known as the Eastern Corridor, extending from 
downtown Cincinnati to western Clermont County. A Tier 1 Record of 
Decision issued on June 2, 2006 identified feasible multi-modal 
components to be advanced by mode and segment into Tier 2 NEPA 
analyses, including a new rail transit corridor composed of four 
implementation segments, improved bus transit, various local network 
improvements, and a new highway capacity corridor composed of five 
implementation segments. In the interim, new information came to light 
regarding the archaeological resources present in connection with the 
Hahn Archaeological District. The discovery of this information 
prompted a re-evaluation of the Tier 1 ROD to determine if the decision 
contained there-in remained valid and if a Supplemental EIS should be 
prepared prior to moving into a Tier 2 EIS. On February 9, 2012 FHWA 
recommended advancing the project into a Tier 2 EIS as the appropriate 
level of study and analysis to determine the significance of impacts to 
archaeological sites.
    Recognizing the complex interests associated with the SR 32 
Relocation Project, ODOT and FHWA in 2013 engaged the U.S. Institute 
for Environmental Conflict Resolution (USIECR) and a facilitation team 
as neutral, outside entities. Their purpose was to review the project 
and carry out a collaborative process to help inform future decisions 
on the feasibility of project development continuing on this project. 
The study identified key stakeholder interests associated with the SR 
32 Relocation Project from their interviews, including the need to: 
Improve transportation safety and efficiency; protect the natural 
environment; facilitate regional economic development; protect quality 
of life issues; be fiscally responsible and allocate limited dollars to 
the most pressing needs; safeguard historic and archeological 
resources; and make decisions in a reasonable timeframe. Their 
situation assessment presented eight options to consider in deciding 
whether and how to move ahead with the SR 32 Project. These ranged from 
not proceeding with the project at this time to proceeding as planned 
to fulfill NEPA, with various options in between that considered 
reframing/rethinking aspects of the project. In conjunction with the 
situation assessment process, FHWA and ODOT coordinated with nine 
federally[hyphen]recognized tribes, state/federal resource/regulatory 
agencies and extensive coordination with the public and area 
stakeholders. Upon deliberation of the options to move forward, ODOT 
concluded that the

[[Page 65695]]

original new alignment Tier 1 corridors for Segment II/III were deemed 
not reasonable due to their potential for significant environmental 
impacts and extensive public controversy.
    ODOT is moving forward with the project development process to 
consider alternatives that have the potential for lower overall 
impacts, focusing on improvements to existing transportation corridors 
rather than new alignments through this environmentally complex area. 
Alignment alternatives on existing SR 32, US 50 and other roadways 
could include: Adding turn lanes, interchange improvements, widening to 
enhance capacity; minor realignments; improving signal timing and/or 
coordination; installing new signal(s); and other improvements. If any 
of these improvements require the preparation of an Environmental 
Impact Statement, future Notices of Intent may be filed.
    The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required 
by applicable Federal environmental laws for this project are being, or 
have been, carried-out by ODOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 and a 
Memorandum of Understanding dated December 11, 2015, and executed by 
FHWA and ODOT.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway 
Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 
12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and 
activities apply to this program.)

    Issued on: September 6, 2016.
Robert L. Griffith,
Acting Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, 
Columbus, Ohio.
[FR Doc. 2016-22910 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-22-P