[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 13, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39926-39930]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-17004]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Western Area Power Administration
Deer Creek Station Energy Facility Project (DOE/EIS-0415)
AGENCY: Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of Record of Decision and Floodplain Statement of
Findings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Western Area Power Administration (Western) received a
request from Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin Electric) to
interconnect its proposed Deer Creek Station Energy Facility Project
(Project) to Western's transmission system. Basin Electric's Project
includes the construction of a new 300-megawatt (MW) natural gas-fired
combined-cycle generation facility in Brookings County, South Dakota,
approximately 13.2 miles of new natural gas supply pipeline, a 0.75-
mile transmission line, two water wells, a 1.25-mile water supply line,
and 1 mile of local road improvements.
Western considered the interconnection request under the provisions
of its Open Access Transmission Service Tariff (Tariff), along with the
information in the environmental impact statement (EIS) and all
comments received, and has made the decision to allow Basin Electric's
request to interconnect at Western's existing White Substation. The
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service (RUS), also
received a request from Basin Electric for financial assistance for the
Deer Creek Station Energy Facility Project. RUS is a cooperating agency
in the EIS process.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please contact Mr. Matt Marsh,
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Document Manager, Western Area
Power Administration, P.O. Box 35800, Billings, MT 59107; telephone
(406) 247-7385 or e-mail [email protected] for additional
information concerning the Project. For general information on the
Department of Energy's (DOE) NEPA review process, please contact Ms.
Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, GC-
54, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
[[Page 39927]]
Washington, DC 20585; telephone (800) 472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Western is a Federal agency within the DOE
that markets and transmits wholesale electrical power through an
integrated 17,000-mile, high-voltage transmission system across 15
western states. Western received a request from Basin Electric to
interconnect their proposed Project to Western's transmission system.
Basin Electric's Project is located within Western's Upper Great Plains
Region, which operates and maintains nearly 100 substations and nearly
7,800 miles of Federal transmission lines in Minnesota, South Dakota,
North Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, and Iowa.
Western published a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for the
project on February 6, 2009 (74 FR 6284). A Notice of Availability of
the Draft EIS was published by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) on February 5, 2010 (75 FR 6026), and a Notice of Availability of
the Final EIS was published by EPA on May 28, 2010 (75 FR 30022).
Western's Purpose and Need
Western's need for action is triggered by Basin Electric's
interconnection request. Western's Tariff describes the conditions
necessary for access to its transmission system. Western provides an
interconnection if there is available capacity on the transmission
system, while considering transmission system reliability and power
delivery to existing customers, and the applicant's objectives.
Western's Proposed Action
Western's Federal involvement is limited to consideration of Basin
Electric's interconnection request for their Project, under the
provisions of the Tariff. Western's Proposed Action is to interconnect
the Project to Western's transmission system. This involves adding a
transformer bay to the White Substation and making other minor system
modifications within the substation.
Applicant's Purpose and Need
Basin Electric's 2007 Power Supply Analysis (PSA) indicated that
additional intermediate capacity would be needed by mid-2012 to meet
its members' growing energy demand. Based on the PSA, a 700- to 800-
megawatt (MW) capacity deficit is projected in the eastern portion of
Basin Electric's service area by the year 2014. Basin Electric is
proposing to meet this increased demand by implementing a resource
expansion plan that includes 200 MW of peaking generation, 300 MW of
wind generation, 250 MW of intermediate generation, and 600 MW of
baseload generation.
Applicant's Proposed Project
As an intermediate capacity unit, Basin Electric's proposed Project
would be cycled at low load periods, such as evenings and weekends. The
unit would be capable of rapidly responding to load swings of the
system. The Project has been sized for 300 MW in order to meet the 250-
MW intermediate power supply need and have a 50-MW reserve to meet peak
intermediate needs. The advantage of siting such a project in Brookings
County is that wind generation on the grid in this area can be
integrated with the combined-cycle natural gas generation. During
periods of high wind generation, gas-fired generation can be reduced.
During periods of low wind generation, the gas-fired generation will be
available to back up the wind generation.
The Project would use combined-cycle technology, in which a gas
turbine powers an electric generator. Under the combined-cycle
configuration, the exhaust from the combustion turbine generator passes
through a heat recovery steam generator that extracts heat from the
turbine exhaust. The waste heat is used to generate steam that then
passes through a steam turbine generator.
Alternatives Considered
The EIS reviewed the options considered by Basin Electric in its
PSA. Western has no decision-making authority over these options.
Western's Federal involvement is limited to the determination of
whether to allow the interconnection of Basin Electric's Project. For
the purposes of furthering environmental decision making, the EIS
evaluated three alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, Western
would not execute an interconnection agreement with Basin Electric.
Given the lack of a Western interconnection, Basin Electric could not
construct its Project as proposed. However, as Basin Electric is a
regulated utility having load growth responsibility, it is reasonable
to expect that it would construct a similar generation facility
somewhere in eastern South Dakota. Such a facility may not connect to a
Federal transmission system, involve Federal financing, or have any
other Federal nexus that would require a NEPA process.
Under the Proposed Action, Western would execute an interconnection
agreement. Basin Electric would construct a 300-MW combined-cycle
combustion turbine natural gas generating facility and supporting
infrastructure at one of two alternative sites in eastern South Dakota.
The EIS analyzed the two alternative sites as White Site 1 and White
Site 2. The sites were selected because of their proximity to a natural
gas supply, to a Western transmission line, to a water supply, and
constructability.
White Site 1 is located approximately six miles southeast of White,
South Dakota, in the northeast quarter of Section 25, Township 111
North, Range 48 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Brookings
County. The footprint of the White Site 1 power generation facility
would take up 40 acres of a 100-acre site. To provide natural gas, a
13.2-mile natural gas line would be constructed from the site to access
the Northern Border Pipeline in Deuel County, South Dakota. Electricity
generated by the facility would be transmitted to Western's White
Substation by a 0.75-mile long, 345-kV transmission line. Cooling water
would be provided by two wells located near Deer Creek, and the water
would be transmitted to the site by a 1.25-mile water pipeline.
White Site 2 is located approximately four miles east-northeast of
White, South Dakota, in the northwest quarter of Section 2, Township
111 North, Range 48 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Brookings
County. In addition to a 40-acre generation facility footprint, White
Site 2 would also involve substation construction that would occupy an
additional six acres. To provide natural gas, a 10-mile natural gas
pipeline would be constructed from the site to access the Northern
Border Pipeline in Deuel County. Electricity generated by the facility
would be transmitted from the new substation to a Western transmission
line located 0.5 miles from the site. Cooling water would be provided
by municipal water supply. A water line extension of one mile would be
constructed to the site.
White Site 1 is convenient to the White Substation, is further away
from occupied residences, and has better drainage than White Site 2.
White Site 2 would require construction of a substation for
interconnection. As a result, Basin Electric selected White Site 1 as
its preferred site.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative
As required by 40 CFR 1505.2(b), Western has identified an
environmentally preferred alternative: the No Action Alternative. Under
this alternative, Western would deny the interconnection request and
not modify its transmission system to interconnect the Project with its
transmission system. Under this alternative it is assumed that Basin
Electric's proposed Project would
[[Page 39928]]
not be built and associated environmental impacts would not occur.
However, Western must respond to Basin Electric's interconnection
request under the terms of the Tariff. The Tariff and underlying
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Orders mandating open access to
transmission systems establish conditions under which interconnection
requests must be considered, including a NEPA review.
Under the No Action Alternative, Basin Electric's purpose and need
would not be met. Basin Electric, as a regulated utility with load
growth responsibility, would have to find an alternate means to meet
the increase in intermediate generation demand for electric power in
the eastern portion of its service area. It is reasonable to expect
that Basin Electric would construct a similar generation facility
somewhere in eastern South Dakota that may or may not have a Federal
nexus requiring NEPA review and consideration of mitigation efforts as
a part of that review.
Environmental Impacts
The analysis in the EIS demonstrated that Basin Electric's Project
would have no impacts or minimal impacts on geology, farmland,
environmental justice, recreation, visual, and cultural resources.
Expected impacts on other environmental resources are discussed below.
Air emissions from the Project would be those expected from a
modern natural gas-fueled power plant, and would be less than
applicable emissions standards for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen
oxides (NOX), and particulates less than 10 microns in
diameter (PM10). The facility would also not be a major
source of hazardous air pollutants, and construction-related emissions
and transportation-related emissions would be minor. Greenhouse gas
emissions from operation of the Project would be approximately one
million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalents per
year. To put these greenhouse gas emissions in perspective, if 300 MW
of energy were to be produced using a traditional subcritical
pulverized coal boiler, the emissions of CO2 equivalents
would increase almost 4-fold, up to a projected 3.8 million metric
tons. In addition, the Project is being constructed to complement
renewable generation in the area, specifically wind energy generation,
which would further facilitate reduction in overall greenhouse gas
emissions. Electricity from this source would normally be generated on
an intermittent basis when wind energy is not available.
Water resources concerns are related to erosion and sedimentation,
and groundwater. Crossings of streams and wetlands by gas pipelines and
waterlines have been minimized to the extent practicable by careful
routing. Where crossings are unavoidable, construction would meet all
permit conditions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State water
quality agencies. The impacts to streams and wetlands from the Project
would be temporary in nature, and were determined to be not
significant. Construction-site storm-water management would also meet
all State and Federal regulations. Groundwater for plant cooling water
would be pumped from the Big Sioux aquifer in the Deer Creek floodplain
near the Project site. Initial pump tests indicate that Deer Creek
would not be affected by drawdown. Biological resources concerns in
this mostly agricultural area are mostly related to small crossings of
native prairie by the gas pipeline corridor. Two locations contain
native prairie forb and warm season grass communities. These locations
are potential habitat for the Dakota skipper, a candidate for listing
under the Endangered Species Act. Impacts in these areas are expected
to be temporary and the prairie would be restored following pipeline
trenching.
Traffic and noise were also identified as potential impacts. While
the local road network provides adequate capacity to meet projected
traffic demands, access to the site would be on unpaved county and
township roads. Peak traffic is estimated at 360 one-way trips to the
site. Maximum noise levels are projected to increase, but not
significantly over background levels. Noise levels would be below U.S.
Housing and Urban Development guidelines.
Public Involvement
A Notice of Intent (NOI) describing the proposed action was
published in the Federal Register on February 6, 2009 (74 FR 6284). The
NOI announced the intent to prepare an EIS on the Project, described
the proposal, provided scoping meeting locations and dates, started a
30-day comment period, and provided contacts for further information
about the Project and for submitting scoping comments. The public
scoping meeting was held at White, South Dakota, on February 24, 2009.
A total of 12 written comments from agencies and two written comments
from individuals were received in response to the NOI. Western
responded to these comments in the Draft EIS.
A Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS was published by the EPA
in the Federal Register on February 5, 2010 (75 FR 6026). A public
hearing to receive comments on the Draft EIS was held in White, South
Dakota on February 25, 2010. While eighteen people attended the public
hearing, none wished to comment for the record, and no comments on the
Draft EIS were received from the public during the public comment
period. Western received comments on the Draft EIS from a number of
Federal and State agencies. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) indicated that the document adequately disclosed the
environmental impacts of the alternatives and no further data
collection is necessary and identified opportunities for additional
mitigation. While the U.S. Department of the Interior indicated that
they had no comments, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
concurred that the Project will not adversely affect federally-listed
endangered and threatened species. In addition, the South Dakota
Department of Game, Fish and Parks (SDGFP) provided technical
corrections to the treatment of state-listed species and their
distribution.
Because no substantive changes were needed to the Draft EIS,
Western did not republish the Draft EIS but instead issued the
comments, responses, and changes to the document, with a new cover
sheet, as the Final EIS pursuant to 40 CFR part 1503.4(c). The complete
Final EIS is composed of both the Draft EIS and the responses to
comments found in the Final EIS. The mitigation measures for air
quality recommended by the EPA in their comments on the Draft EIS have
been adopted. The EPA provided comments on the Final EIS with concerns
about groundwater withdrawal and monitoring. Additional details about
groundwater issues are presented in the Groundwater Mitigation section
below.
Mitigation Measures
Through public and agency participation in the NEPA process, Basin
Electric has altered the design of the Project to minimize impacts to
the environment. Best Management Practices will be used for sediment
and erosion control, as described in a Project-specific Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan, Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure
Plan, South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(SDDENR) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges with Industrial
Activities, and SDDENR General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from
[[Page 39929]]
Construction Activities. Other Project specific mitigation measures are
identified in the Draft EIS document for each resource category and in
the Final EIS response to comments. Basin Electric's Standard
Mitigation Measures for the Project are listed in Appendix F of the
Draft EIS. Project-specific mitigation measures, to be implemented as
conditions of this decision, are listed below.
Air Quality Mitigation
A dust control plan will be implemented for use of unpaved county
and township roads in the plant vicinity. The air permit is expected to
be issued in summer 2010. The draft permit establishes limits for
NOX, CO, PM10, total sulfur content for natural
gas and fuel oil to be used, opacity levels, and start up and shut down
operations. Basin Electric will comply with all conditions and limits
in the final air permit.
Groundwater Mitigation
The 2 groundwater production wells will be located approximately
275 feet from Deer Creek. Based on the typical hydraulic
characteristics of the Big Sioux aquifer the cone of influence around
the production wells would be 21 to 112 feet at a pumping rate of 125
gallons per minute. Only one production well will be in service at any
given time. A minimum buffer of 163 feet between the edge of the cone
of influence and Deer Creek will thus be preserved. Two pumping tests
will determine the actual extent of the cone of influence, which is
expected to fall within the range identified above. Pumping tests will
be performed during the initial pumping of the first production well
and during the period of maximum withdrawal at Project start-up to fill
the on-site water storage tank. Monitoring will take place at least
every hour during these testing periods. Two groundwater monitoring
wells would be left in place between the two production wells and Deer
Creek. Given the existing data and buffer between the production well
and Deer Creek, no impacts to Deer Creek are anticipated. If the cone
of influence is larger than anticipated, Basin Electric will reassess
the potential for impacts to Deer Creek in conjunction with Western.
Wetlands Impact Avoidance and Mitigation
The Project site, gas pipeline, transmission line and water line
have the potential to impact wetlands. The Project area contains
pothole wetlands, wetland swales (some of which are cultivated) and
creeks. Construction in wetlands will be avoided to the extent
practicable. Where impacts to wetlands are unavoidable, construction
will be performed so that any impacts are minimized. Wetland areas are
very common in the Project area, so complete avoidance is not possible.
Construction of Basin Electric's Project would impact 8.74 acres of
wetlands along the natural gas pipeline and water pipeline alignments.
In addition, construction of the access road into the power generation
facility would permanently impact 0.02 acre of wetlands, and
temporarily impact an additional 0.02 acre. All of the Project impacts
will occur to drainage wetlands classified as riverine, according to
the Natural Resources Conservation Service Hydrogeomorphic
Classification System for wetlands. Similar wetland areas in the
Project area are often cultivated when located in cropland, especially
in dry years.
The following water body crossing procedures will be used.
Hazardous and regulated materials, chemicals, fuels, and lubricating
oils would not be stored and concrete coating activities would not be
performed within 100 feet of any intermittent creek or other water
body. All construction equipment would be refueled at least 100 feet
from any water body. All spoil from creek crossings would be placed in
the construction right-of-way (ROW) at least 10 feet from the water's
edge, if present. Sediment barriers would be used to prevent the flow
of spoil material into the water body. Where possible and practical,
any large wetlands and perennial streams will be horizontally
directional drilled (HDD). Drilling equipment and bell holes (entrance
and exit pits) will be placed at least 25 feet away from the edge of
any waterways and wetlands. Soil excavated from the bell holes will be
backfilled and stabilized. Where HDD is not used, trenching will be
accomplished by minimizing the extent of construction equipment usage
in wetland areas and limiting equipment travel and use to the existing
ROW. Equipment crossing of wetlands will be completed through use of
timber mats if rutting in excess of four inches occurs. Impermeable
material such as clay rich soils or sand bag trench blocks will be
placed as soil block within the ditch at the entry and exit points of
each individual wetland complex so as to minimize the potential of
inadvertent drainage of the wetland area.
The following is a general list of procedures to be utilized to
reduce wetland impact in areas where open-cut trench crossings in
wetland areas will occur. The duration of construction-related
disturbance within wetlands will be minimized by means of timely
construction during the historically dry periods of the year, typically
in the fall. If standing water or saturated soils are present, low
ground-weight construction equipment will be used or normal equipment
would be operated on timber riprap, prefabricated equipment mats, or
geotextile fabric overlain with gravel. Geotextile fabric used for this
purpose will be strong enough to allow removal of all gravel and fabric
from the wetland. The top 12 inches of topsoil will be segregated from
the area disturbed by trenching, except in areas where standing water
or saturated soils are present. Once the trench has been backfilled,
the segregated topsoil will be used to cover the trench. Impermeable
material such as clay rich soils or sandbags will be placed as trench
blocks at the entry and exit points of each individual wetland complex
to minimize the potential of inadvertent drainage of the wetland area.
Temporary sediment barriers will be used to stop or reduce the flow
of sediment coming into wetland locations. These barriers will be
constructed of materials such as silt fence, staked hay or straw bales,
or sand bags depending on conditions present and the most effective
barrier for those conditions. Temporary sediment barriers will be
installed as necessary at the base of slopes until disturbed vegetation
has been reestablished.
During pipeline installation, the welding of a pipe string will be
done at the edge of the wetland and the completed section will be
pulled or pushed across (or under, if HDD is used) the wetland and tied
into the rest of the pipeline. During wetland disturbance, erosion
control structures will be placed as necessary to prevent flow of soil
from spoil piles into undisturbed wetland areas. If the wetland has a
vegetative mat that can be saved in large segments, the mat will be
saved for replacement over the backfilled trench to help re-establish
vegetation more rapidly. Once construction has been completed, wetland
areas will be restored by grading, which will return the area's
drainage patterns to pre-construction contours. Excess backfill will be
disposed of on dry land in the ROW rather than on wetland areas. Excess
backfill will not be placed on any wetland or floodplain area.
Restoration will be undertaken for temporary impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands. Mitigation measures for temporary impacts may
include placement of a horizontal marker (e.g., fabric, certified weed-
free straw, etc.) to delineate the existing ground elevation
[[Page 39930]]
of wetlands that would be temporarily filled during construction.
Following construction, mitigation measures will include removal of
temporary fill, recontouring to the original site elevations, and then
reseeding using native plant species to reestablish a prevalence of
hydrophytic vegetation. Revegetation protocols typically will make use
of plant species currently growing in the affected wetlands.
Biological Mitigation
SDGFP will be consulted if any active raptor nests were discovered
within 0.25 miles of any of the Project facilities during construction.
To ensure that impacts to the Dakota skipper are avoided, pipeline
construction will not take place in the two locations of Dakota skipper
suitable habitat during the growth and blooming period for the nectar
source of the adult butterfly (May-July), which includes the summer
breeding period of the butterfly. Nesting bird surveys will be
completed prior to ground disturbance activities in accordance with
protocols developed in consultation with Western and the USFWS. The
seed mix and specifications for native plantings in disturbed area will
be developed by Basin Electric, based on the NRCS-recommended seed
mixes.
Traffic and Roadway Mitigation
Traffic signage changes and intersection improvements will be
implemented to manage the temporary increase in traffic volumes and
loads during construction and for deliveries that will occur during
Project operations.
Noise Mitigation
Basin Electric will conduct a post-construction operational noise
assessment to be completed by an independent third-party noise
consultant, approved by the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission,
to show compliance with the noise levels according to the predictive
model used in the noise analysis. The noise assessment will be
performed in accordance with American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) B133.8--Gas Turbine Installation Sound Emissions. The results of
that analysis will be evaluated by Basin Electric to determine if any
modifications to the proposed facilities or operations are needed.
Consultation
Western is the lead Federal agency for compliance with Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act. By letter of May 10, 2010,
the South Dakota State Historic Preservation Officer concurred that no
historic properties would be affected by the Project. RUS is the lead
Federal agency for compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act. A biological assessment was prepared and submitted with a
determination that the Project may affect, but would not likely
adversely affect listed species. As stated above, the USFWS concurred
with this determination.
Floodplain Statement of Findings
In accordance with 10 CFR part 1022, Western considered the
potential impacts of the Project on floodplains and wetlands. The
natural gas pipeline for Basin Electric's Project would cross 100-year
floodplains in eight places. There are no pipeline routes that would
completely avoid floodplains, given the locations that existing
pipelines would need to be tapped and drainage patterns in the region.
As a result, there is no practicable alternative to construction of a
natural gas pipeline in floodplains. In addition, the wells producing
cooling water would be located in the floodplain of Deer Creek. Total
impacts to the floodplain from the well facilities would be an
approximately 200-foot by 200-foot area for two individual wellheads, a
monitoring well, and an 8-by-10 foot control building. The access road,
wells, and control building would be contoured to an elevation of one
foot above the 100-year flood elevation. Consistent with the
requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program, the building
would be watertight and utilities would be capable of resisting flood
damage. Because all other available water well supply sites are located
in the Deer Creek floodplain, there is no practicable alternative to
locating this site within the floodplain.
Permanent impacts to wetlands of 0.02 acres would occur on the
Project site due to construction of facilities. Temporary impacts to
wetlands would occur due to construction of the proposed Project
facilities, including the Project site (0.02 acres), water pipeline
(5.86 acres), and natural gas pipeline (2.88 acres). Impacts have been
minimized by changing the site layout, use of HDD, and by construction
of facilities adjacent to existing linear features such as county and
township roads. Where unavoidable, impacts are minimized by use of pads
for heavy equipment and restoration to preconstruction contours. There
are no pipeline routes that completely avoid wetlands, given the
locations that existing pipelines would need to be tapped and the
constraints of the Project site. As a result, there is no practicable
alternative to construction in wetlands. Project facilities in the
floodplain would not impound or impede drainage of flood flows, or
increase the severity of or damage from any flood flows.
Decision
Western's decision is to allow Basin Electric's request for
interconnection at the White Substation in South Dakota and to complete
modifications to the substation to support the interconnection.\1\
Western's decision to grant this interconnection request satisfies the
agency's statutory mission and Basin Electric's objectives while
minimizing harm to the environment. An interconnection agreement will
be executed in accordance with Western's Tariff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Western's authority to issue a record of decision for
integrating transmission facilities is pursuant to authority
delegated on October 4, 1999, from the Assistant Secretary for
Environment, Safety and Health to Western's Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basin Electric has committed to minimize its proposed Project's
impact on the environment through the Project's design, the use of
pollution control technology, and the implementation of mitigation
measures as incorporated in the Project description and summarized
above. Western will adhere to its own standard mitigation measures for
all modifications within White Substation. Western conditions its
approval of Basin Electric's request to interconnect to Western's
transmission system upon the adoption and implementation of the
mitigation measures as described in the Final EIS.
This decision is based on the information contained in the Deer
Creek Station Energy Facility Project Final EIS (DOE/EIS-0415). The EIS
and this ROD were prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Council
on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing NEPA (40 CFR
parts 1500-1508), DOE Procedures for Implementing NEPA (10 CFR part
1021), and DOE's Floodplain/Wetland Review Requirements (10 CFR 1022).
Full implementation of this decision is contingent upon the Project
obtaining all applicable permits and approvals.
Dated: June 30, 2010.
Timothy J. Meeks,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-17004 Filed 7-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P