[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28667-28669]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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 ([email protected]); or, Kathleen Johnson, 
Environmental Impact Specialist, Montana Department of Environmental 
Quality, P. O. Box 200901, Helena MT 59620-0901, phone 406-444-1760 
([email protected]). A copy of the ROD can be viewed online at: http://www.usda.gov/rus/water/ees/eis.htm#Southern%20Montana%20Electric%20Cooperative,%20Inc and http://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 http://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