Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 22, 2007 / Notices 28667 

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] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Roadless Area Conservation National 

Advisory Committee 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jessica Call, Roadless Area Conservation 

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. 

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 

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: 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), 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
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 1.5- 

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 construction; 

permanent increase in impermeable surface 

area; minor, long-term impacts due to waste 

monofill.

Moderate, short-term impacts due to construction; 

permanent increase in impermeable surface 

area. 

Water Resources .............................. Negligible construction impacts to receiving water 

quality; minor impacts on Missouri River flows 

from water withdrawals.

Negligible construction impacts to receiving water 

quality; minor impacts on Missouri River flows 

from water withdrawals. 

Air Quality ......................................... 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.

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. 

Biological Resources ........................ Minor, short-term construction impacts to terrestrial 

and aquatic biota, vegetation; minor long-term 

impact from rail/traffic collisions.

Minor, short-term construction impacts to terrestrial 

and aquatic biota, vegetation; minor long-term 

impact from rail/traffic collisions. 

Noise ................................................ Minor to moderate, short-term construction impacts; 

minor long-term impact from train traffic, plant operation; significant impacts to National Historic 

Landmark (NHL).

Minor to moderate, short-term construction impacts; 

minor long-term impact from train traffic, plant operation; greater number of residential receptors. 

Recreation ........................................ Negligible to minor impacts ...................................... Negligible to minor impacts. 

Cultural Resources/Historic Properties.Adverse effect to NHL; no impact to archeological 

resources.

No impact to historic properties or archeological resources. 

Visual Resources .............................. Significant impact/adverse effect to NHL ................. Negligible to minor impact to NHL; moderate impacts in localized area. 

Transportation ................................... Short-term, moderate construction impacts .............. Short-term, moderate construction 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, long-term 

impact on land use/property values.

Minor, long-term impact on land use/property values. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
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.Minor, medium-term construction impacts; minor to 

moderate operation impacts; possible capacity 

issues with use of Great Falls landfill. 

Human Health and Safety ................ Minor construction-related impacts; minor, longterm operation impacts.Minor construction-related impacts; increased risk 

for traffic-related accidents. 

Socioeconomics ............................... Minor to moderately beneficial impacts .................... Minor to moderately beneficial impacts. 

Environmental Justice/Protection of 

Children.

No impact .................................................................. Minor to moderate, long-term impact 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 

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 

AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of funding availability 

and solicitation of applications. 

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 

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: http://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 http://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. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES