52230 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Notices 

supporting infrastructure and facilities 

in the EIS. 

The Facility would eliminate process 

wastewater entirely through use of 

water treatment, recycling, and zero 

liquid discharge systems. Solid waste 

(slag) and sulfur, by-products from the 

process, would be sold as a commercial 

product, disposed of onsite, or 

transported offsite for disposal at a nonhazardous, solid waste landfill. The 

construction work force would peak at 

up to 1,500 construction workers over a 

4-year period. The Facility would be 

operated and maintained by a staff of 

approximately 145 employees and 

contractors. 

Coal gasification and electric 

generation components of the Facility 

would be constructed on approximately 

70 acres of the site. The site is currently 

used for agriculture (row crops), is 

surrounded by farmland, and is zoned 

for industrial and agricultural use. The 

coal gasification and electric generation 

components of the Facility are entirely 

within property that is zoned for 

industrial use. In addition, several 

hundred acres of Prime Farmland 

within the 886-acre parcel could be 

affected by the construction of the 

Facility. Preliminary assessments 

indicate that the footprint of the 

proposed facility would not affect any 

wetlands or floodplains. In the event 

that further analysis indicates that 

wetlands or floodplains would be 

affected, DOE will prepare a floodplain 

and wetland assessment in accordance 

with its regulations at 10 CFR part 1022 

and include the assessment in the EIS. 

Alternatives 

In determining the range of reasonable 

alternatives to be considered in the EIS 

for the proposed CCG Facility, DOE 

identified the reasonable alternatives 

that would satisfy the underlying 

purpose and need for agency action. 

DOE currently plans to analyze in detail 

the project proposed by CCG and the no 

action alternative. DOE will also analyze 

design options available to CCG within 

the scope of the project (e.g., various 

methods for disposition of slag and 

sulfur and transportation of coal) and 

mitigation measures as appropriate. 

Under the no action alternative, DOE 

would not provide the loan guarantee 

for the CCG project and the project 

would not be constructed as part of the 

DOE loan guarantee program. This 

option would not contribute to the 

Federal loan guarantee program goals to 

make loan guarantees for energy projects 

that ‘‘avoid, reduce, or sequester air 

pollutants or anthropogenic emissions 

of greenhouse gases; and employ new or 

significantly improved technologies.’’ 

Preliminary Identification of 

Environmental Issues 

The following environmental resource 

areas have been tentatively identified 

for consideration in the EIS. This list is 

neither intended to be all-inclusive nor 

a predetermined set of potential 

environmental impacts: 

• Air quality; 

• Greenhouse gas emissions and 

climate change; 

• Energy use and production; 

• Water resources, including 

groundwater and surface waters; 

• Wetlands and floodplains; 

• Geological resources; 

• Ecological resources, including 

threatened and endangered species and 

species of special concern; 

• Cultural resources, including 

historic structures and properties; sites 

of religious and cultural significance to 

tribes; and archaeological resources; 

• Land use; 

• Visual resources and aesthetics; 

• Transportation and traffic; 

• Noise and vibration; 

• Hazardous materials and solid 

waste management; 

• Human health and safety; 

• Accidents and terrorism; 

• Socioeconomics, including impacts 

to community services; 

• Environmental justice. 

DOE invites comments on whether 

other resource areas or potential issues 

should be considered in the EIS. 

Public Scoping Process 

To ensure that all issues related to 

DOE’s proposed action are addressed, 

DOE seeks public input to define the 

scope of the EIS. The public scoping 

period will begin with publication of 

the NOI and end on November 9, 2009. 

Interested government agencies, privatesector organizations, and the general 

public are encouraged to submit 

comments concerning the content of the 

EIS, issues and impacts to be addressed 

in the EIS, and alternatives that should 

be considered. Scoping comments 

should clearly describe specific issues 

or topics that the EIS should address to 

assist DOE in identifying significant 

issues. Comments must be postmarked 

or e-mailed by November 9, 2009 to 

ensure consideration. (See ADDRESSES

above). Late comments will be 

considered to the extent practicable. 

DOE invites those agencies with 

jurisdiction by law or special expertise 

to be cooperating agencies. 

A public scoping meeting will be held 

at a date, time, and location to be 

determined. Notice of this meeting will 

be provided in local news media and on 

the DOE Loan Guarantee Program’s 

‘‘NEPA Public Involvement’’ Web site 

(http://www.lgprogram.energy.gov/ 

NEPA–2.html) at least 15 days prior to 

the date of the meeting. Members of the 

public and representatives of groups 

and Federal, State, local, and tribal 

agencies are invited to attend. The 

meeting will include both a formal 

opportunity to present oral comments 

and an informal session during which 

DOE and CCG personnel will be 

available for discussions with attendees. 

Displays and other forms of information 

about the proposed agency action, the 

EIS process, and the CCG proposed 

Facility will also be available for review. 

DOE requests that anyone who wishes 

to present oral comments at the meeting 

contact Ms. Colamaria by phone or email (see ADDRESSES above). Individuals 

who do not make advance arrangements 

to speak may register at the meeting. 

Speakers who need more than five 

minutes should indicate the length of 

time desired in their request. DOE may 

need to limit speakers to five minutes 

initially, but will provide additional 

opportunities as time permits. Written 

comments regarding the scoping process 

can also be submitted to DOE officials 

at the scoping meeting. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 6, 

2009. 

Steve Isakowitz, 

Chief Financial Officer, Office of the Chief 

Financial Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–24422 Filed 10–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER–FRL–8598–2] 

Environmental Impact Statements and 

Regulations; Availability of EPA 

Comments 

Availability of EPA comments 

prepared pursuant to the Environmental 

Review Process (ERP), under section 

309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 

102(2)(c) of the National Environmental 

Policy Act as amended. Requests for 

copies of EPA comments can be directed 

to the Office of Federal Activities at 

202–564–7146 or http://www.epa.gov/ 

compliance/nepa/. 

An explanation of the ratings assigned 

to draft environmental impact 

statements (EISs) was published in FR 

dated July 17, 2009 (74 FR 34754). 

Draft EISs 

EIS No. 20090038, ERP No. D–COE– 

K35045–CA, PROGRAMMATIC—Los 

Angeles Regional Dredge Material 

Management Plan, Develop a Longmstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Notices 52231 

Term Strategy for Managing Dredged 

Sediment for all Harbors within the 

Region, City of Long Beach and 

County of Los Angeles, CA. 

Summary: EPA expressed 

environmental concerns about the need 

for additional alternatives analysis; 

analysis of sediment management 

options; and better evaluation of 

dredging methods. Rating EC2. 

EIS No. 20090134, ERP No. D–COE– 

K65363–CA, Newhall Ranch Resource 

Management and Development Plan 

(RMDP) and the Spineflower 

Conservation Plan (SCP), 

Implementation, Portion of Santa 

Clara River Valley, Los Angeles 

County, CA. 

Summary: EPA expressed 

environmental objections to water 

quality impacts to tributaries of the 

Santa Clara River, and expressed 

concerns about impacts to air quality, 

traffic, and water supply. EPA 

recommended the maximum avoidance 

alternative that reduces project footprint 

and impacts and provided additional 

green building resources. Rating EO2. 

EIS No. 20090177, ERP No. D–AFS– 

K65366–CA, Lassen National Forest, 

Motorized Travel Management Plan, 

Implementation, Butte, Lassen, 

Modoc, Plumas, Shasta, Siskiyou, 

Tehama Counties, CA. 

Summary: EPA expressed 

environmental concerns about the scope 

of alternatives analysis, water resource 

impacts, decommissioning of 

unauthorized routes, and monitoring 

and enforcement of travel management 

requirements. Rating EC2. 

EIS No. 20090232, ERP No. D–BIA– 

K60043–CA, Soboba Band of Luiseno 

Indians Horseshoe Grande Fee-toTrust Project, Construction of a Hotel 

and Casino Project, City of San 

Jacinto, Riverside County, CA. 

Summary: EPA expressed 

environmental concerns about potential 

impacts to waters of the U.S. from the 

wastewater treatment percolation pond, 

and recommended mitigation measures 

for construction equipment emissions, 

pollution prevention measures to avoid 

soil contamination, and commitments to 

green building design. Rating EC2. 

EIS No. 20090254, ERP No. D–AFS– 

K65377–00, Bridgeport Travel 

Management Project, To Provide the 

Primary Framework for Sustainable 

Management of Motor Vehicle Use on 

the Bridgeport Ranger District, 

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, 

Mono County, CA and Lyon, Douglas, 

and Mineral Counties, NV. 

Summary: EPA expressed 

environmental concerns about the scope 

of alternatives analysis, water resources, 

wet weather and seasonal closures, 

erosion, decommissioning of 

unauthorized routes, climate change, 

and monitoring and enforcement of 

travel management requirements. Rating 

EC2. 

EIS No. 20090266, ERP No. D–IBR– 

K39120–CA, Madera Irrigation 

District Water Supply Enhancement 

Project, Constructing and Operating a 

Water Bank on the Madera Property, 

Madera County, CA. 

Summary: EPA expressed 

environmental concerns about the longterm feasibility of this conjunctive use/ 

water bank project given increasingly 

constrained source water supplies, and 

potential significant impacts to vernal 

pools, rare alkali rain pools, and 

threatened and endangered species. 

Rating EC2. 

EIS No. 20090273, ERP No. D–FSA– 

A65177–00, PROGRAMMATIC— 

Biomass Crop Assistance Program 

(BCAP), To Establish and Administer 

the Program Areas Program 

Component of BCAP as mandated in 

Title IX of the 2008 Farm Bill in the 

United States. 

Summary: EPA expressed 

environmental concerns about potential 

direct, indirect and cumulative impacts 

bioenergy crops will have on water 

quality and air quality to waters of the 

U.S., and recommended a monitoring 

program for the BCAP and subsequent 

individual projects. Rating EC2. 

EIS No. 20090280, ERP No. DS–FHW– 

E40768–TN, Shelby Avenue/ 

Demonbreun Street (Gateway 

Boulevard Corridor, from I–65 North 

[I–24 West] to I–40 West in 

Downtown Nashville, To Address 

Transportation needs in the Study 

Area, Davidson County, TN. 

Summary: EPA expressed 

environmental concerns about air toxic 

impacts and requested that this issue be 

addressed. EPA also requested that the 

document include appropriate 

mitigation. Rating EC2. 

Final EISs 

EIS No. 20090236, ERP No. F–FHW– 

K53013–CA, Orange County Gateway 

Project, To Provide Grade Separation 

Alternative Along the Burlington 

Northern Santa Fe railroad tracks 

from west of Bradford Avenue to west 

of Imperial Highway (State Route 90), 

Cities of Placentia and Anaheim, 

Orange County, CA. 

Summary: EPA continues to have 

environmental concerns about impacts 

to air quality and jurisdictional waters, 

as well as, cumulative impacts and 

environmental justice impacts. 

EIS No. 20090288, ERP No. F–COE– 

K39041–CA, Natomas Levee 

Improvement Program, Phase 3 

Landside Improvements Project, 

Issuance of Section 408 and 404 

Permits, Sacramento and Sutter 

Counties, CA. 

Summary: EPA continues to have 

environmental concerns about the 

residual flood risk to development in a 

floodplain protected by levees, and 

indirect and cumulative environmental 

effects. EPA recommended Natomas 

Basin flood safety plan implementation 

prior to additional development. 

EIS No. 20090300, ERP No. F–NPS– 

K61169–AZ, Fire Management Plan, 

Management of Wildland and 

Prescribed Fire, Protection of Human 

Life and Property Restoration and 

Maintenance of Fire Dependent 

Ecosystems, and Reduction of 

Hazardous Fuels, Grand Canyon 

National Park, Coconino County, AZ. 

Summary: No formal comment letter 

was sent to the preparing agency. 

Dated: October 6, 2009. 

Robert W. Hargrove, 

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office 

of Federal Activities. 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U 

[FR Doc. E9–24468 Filed 10–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER–FRL–8598–1] 

Environmental Impacts Statements; 

Notice of Availability 

Responsible Agency: Office of Federal 

Activities, General Information (202) 

564–1399 or http://www.epa.gov/ 

compliance/nepa/. 

Weekly Receipt of Environmental 

Impact Statements Filed 09/28/2009 

through 10/02/2009 Pursuant to 40 CFR 

1506.9 

EIS No. 20090340, Final EIS, AFS, UT, 

Pockets Resource Management 

Project, Additional Information on 

Analysis and Disclosure on the Effect 

of the PA and Alternatives on Three 

Unroaded and Undeveloped Areas 

Identified on a 2005 Draft Map, 

Proposes to Salvage Dead and Dying 

Spruce/Fir, Regenerate Aspen, and 

Manage Travel, Escalate Ranger 

District, Dixie National Forest, 

Garfield County, UT, Wait Period 

Ends: 11/09/2009, Contact: Marianne 

Breeze Orton 435–676–9360. 

EIS No. 20090341, Final EIS, IBR, CA, 

Grassland Bypass Project 2010–2019 

Project, Proposed new Use 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES