Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments, 4577-4578 [E6-1042]

Download as PDF rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Notices standards and not the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved. An annual summary report is also required. Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart must maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least two years following the collection of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records. All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA regional office. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable. Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10.35 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Respondents/Affected Entities: Owners or operators of each grain terminal elevator or any grain storage elevator. Estimated Number of Respondents: 200. Frequency of Response: On occasion, initially and annually. Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 2,070 hours. Estimated Total Annual Costs: $167,108, which includes $0 Capital/ startup expense, $0 Operations and Maintenance costs, and $167,108 Respondent Labor costs. Changes in the Estimates: There was an increase of 1,811 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. The increase in burden hours from the most recently approved ICR is VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:17 Jan 26, 2006 Jkt 208001 due primarily to a more accurate accounting of existing sources, an annual summary report that was inadvertently left out, a revised labor rate, and the fact that we are presently accounting for management and clerical person hours per year, which was not shown in the previous ICR. After a thorough analysis by the National Grain and Feed Association, they arrived at two hundred as the number of sources that are subject to subpart DD, as compared to one hundred and thirty-two in the previous ICR. There are no capital or operations and maintenance costs since there is no continuous monitoring. Dated: December 5, 2005. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E6–1041 Filed 1–26–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER––FRL–6671–7] 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 202–564–7167. An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental impact statements (EISs) was published in the Federal Register dated April 1, 2005 (70 FR 16815). Draft EISs EIS No. 20050340, ERP No. D–AFS– J65451–UT, West Fork Blacks Fork Allotment Management Plan, Proposes to Authorize Continued Livestock Grazing, Township 1 North, Range 11 East, Salt Lake Principle Meridan, Evanston Ranger District, Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Summit County, UT Summary: EPA expressed concerns about adverse impacts from sheep grazing to soils and vegetation. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20050400, ERP No. D–BLM– K65291–00, Lake Havasu Field Office Resource Management Plan, Implementation, Colorado River, Davis Dam in the north and south to Park Dam, CA and AZ PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 4577 Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed project. Rating LO. EIS No. 20050405, ERP No. D–NPS– K39094–NV, Clean Water Coalition Systems Conveyance and Operations Program, Construction, Operation and Maintenance, City of Las Vegas, City County, NV Summary: EPA expressed concerns about potential impacts to water quality and requested additional information on wastewater discharge permit requirements, details on water and air quality mitigation, criteria for effluent allocation between Las Vegas Wash and Boulder Basin, measures to conserve, reuse, and recycle water, and measures to reduce wastewater production. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20050424, ERP No. D–NPS– K39095–CA, Furnace Creek Water Collection System, Reconstruction, Death Valley National Park, Implementation, Inyo County, CA Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about the proposed discharge of more than 120,000 gallons per day of reverse osmosis brine into the Furnace Creek Wash alluvium, which could affect surface water and groundwater quality. EPA requested that other disposal alternatives be considered. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20050436, ERP No. D–NPS– F61022–MI, Isle Royale National Park Wilderness and Backcounty Management Plan, Implementation, MI Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed project. Rating LO. EIS No. 20050446, ERP No. D–USN– E11059–00, Undersea Warfare Training Range (USWTR), Installation and Operation, Preferred Site (in the Cherry Point Operating Area) and the Alternate Sites (within the Virginia Capes and Jacksonville Operating Areas), NC, VA and FL Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed project. Rating LO. Final EISs EIS No. 20050391, ERP No. F–AFS– K65284–CA, Creeks Forest Health Recovery Project, To Develop a Network of Defensible Fuel Profile Zones (DFPZs), Group-Selection Timber Harvest, Individual Tree Selection, Lassen National Forest, Almanor Ranger District, Plumas County, CA Summary: EPA’s previous concerns about the potential impacts to water and air quality, environmental justice and tribal consultation have been adequately addressed; therefore, EPA does not object to the proposed action. E:\FR\FM\27JAN1.SGM 27JAN1 4578 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Notices EIS No. 20050423, ERP No. F–BLM– K65439–NV, Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area, Resource Management Plan, Implementation, Cities of Las Vegas and Henderson, Clark County, NV Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed project. EIS No. 20050479, ERP No. F–SFW– A65171–00, Resident Canada Goose Management Plan, Evaluate Alternatives Strategies to Reduce, Manage, and Resident Canada Goose Population, Implementation, within the Conterminous U.S. Summary: No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency. EIS No. 20050508, ERP No. F–NPS– F65057–IN, Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial General Management Plan, Implementation, Lincoln City Spencer County, IN Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed project. EIS No. 20050522, ERP No. F–NPS– G02014–TX, Big Thicket National Preserve Oil and Gas Management Plan, Implementation, Hardin, Jefferson, Orange, Liberty, Tyler, Jasper and Polk Counties, TX Summary: No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency. Dated: January 24, 2006. Ken Mittelholtz, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Federal Activities. [FR Doc. E6–1042 Filed 1–26–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER–FRL–6671–6] rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564–7167 or https://www.epa.gov/ compliance/nepa/. Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed 01/16/2006 through 01/20/2006 pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. EIS No. 20060019, Final EIS, FHW, NY, Willis Avenue Bridge Reconstruction, Proposing Reconstruction of 100-yearold Willis Avenue Bridge over the Harem River between Manhattan and the Bronx, New York and Bronx Counties, NY, Wait Period Ends: 02/ 27/2006, Contact: Robert Arnold 518– 431–4125. EIS No. 20060020, Final EIS, COE, NC, Fort Bragg Headquarters for XVII Airborne Corps and Army Special Operations Command, To Determine VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:17 Jan 26, 2006 Jkt 208001 the Level of Training on the Overhills Tract Program, Cumberland and Harnett Counties, NC, Wait Period Ends: 02/27/2006, Contact: Ms. Julie Morgan 888–893–0678. Ext 258. EIS No. 20060021, Final EIS, AFS, UT, Quitchupah Creek Road Project, Public Road Construction to Provide Access from UT–10 to the Acord Lakes Road, Application for Right-ofWay Grant, Fishlake National Forest, Sevier County Special Services District (SSD), Sevier and Emery Counties, UT, Wait Period Ends: 02/ 27/2006, Contact: Rod Lee 435–896– 1500. EIS No. 20060022, Draft EIS, FTA, WA, South Valley Corridor Project, Improvement to Existing Urban Transportation System, Light Rail Transit (LRT), Right-of-Way Grant, City of Liberty Lake, Spokane County, WA, Comment Period Ends: 03/13/ 2006, Contact: John Witmer 206–220– 7954. EIS No. 20060023, Draft EIS, IBR, 00 Upper Rio Grande Basin Water Operations Review, To Develop an Integrated Plan for Water Operations at the Existing Facilities, NM, CO and TX, Comment Period Ends: 03/21/ 2006, Contact: Valda Terauds 505– 462–3584, U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Department of Army Corps of Engineers are Joint Lead Agencies for the above project. EIS No. 20060024, Draft Supplement, AFS, WI, McCaslin Project, Vegetation Management Activities that are Consistent with Direction in the Nicolet Forest Plan, New Information to Address Inadequate Disclosure of the Cumulative Effect Analysis for Six Animal and Eight Plant Species, Lakewood/Lasna District, Chequamegaon-Nicolet National Forest, Oconto and Forest Counties, WI, Comment Period Ends: 03/13/ 2006, Contact: Brian Quinn 715–762– 5176. EIS No. 20060025, Draft Supplement, AFS, WI, Northwest Howell Vegetation Management Project, New Information to Address Inadequate Disclosure of the Cumulative Effects Analysis for Six Animal and Two Plant Species, Eagle River-Florence Ranger District, Chequamegon-Nicole National Forest, Florence and Forest Counties, WI, Comment Period Ends: 03/13/2006, Contact: Brian Quinn 715–762–5176. EIS No. 20060026, Draft EIS, AFS, AK, Whistle Stop Project, Provide Access to Backcountry Recreation Area on National Forest, System (NFS) Lands, on the Kenai Peninsula between Portage and Moose Pass, Chugach PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 National Forest, Kenai Peninsula Borough, AK, Comment Period Ends: 03/13/2006, Contact: Adam McClory 907–754–2352. EIS No. 20060027, Draft EIS, AFS, CA, Kings River Project, Proposal to Restore Historical Pre-1850 Forest Conditions, Implementation, High Sierra Ranger District, Sierra National Forest, Fresno County, CA, Comment Period Ends: 03/13/2006, Contact: Ross Peckinpah 559–855–5355. EIS No. 20060028, Draft EIS, DOD, NM, PROGRAMMATIC—Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) Activities on White Sands Missile Range (WSMR), Implementation, NM, Comment Period Ends: 03/28/2006, Contact: Linda Woestendiek 505–846– 5396. EIS No. 20060029, Final EIS, NOA, WA, Washington State Forest Habitat Conservation Plan, Propose Issuance of Multiple Species Incidental Take Permit of 4(d) Rules, NPDES Permit, U.S. Army COE Section 10 and 404 Permits, WA, Wait Period Ends: 02/ 27/2006, Contact: Sally Butt 360–753– 5832. Amended Notices EIS No. 20050448, Draft EIS, BLM, MT, Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument Resource Management Plan, Implementation, Blaine, Chouteau, Fergus and Phillips Counties, MT, Comment Period Ends: 04/26/2006, Contact: Jerry Majerus 406–538–1924, Revision of Federal Register Notice Published on 10/28/ 2005: Comment Period has been Extended from 01/26/2006 to 04/26/ 2006. EIS No. 20050516, Draft Supplement, DOI, 00, Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, Comprehensive Conservation Plan, A New Alternative E: Modified Wildlife and Integrated Public Use, Implementation, MN, WI, IL and IA, Comment Period Ends: 03/06/2006, Contact: Don Hultman 507–452–4232 This document is available on the Internet at: https://www.fws.gov/ midwest/planning/uppermiss/ index.html Revision of Federal Register Notice Published 12/16/ 2005: Comment Period has been extended from 02/03/2006 to 03/06/ 2006. EIS No. 20050534, Draft EIS, AFS, WA, The Summit at Snoqualmie Master Development Plan (MPD), Proposal to Ensure Long-Term Economic Viability, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie/ Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests, King County, WA, Comment Period Ends: 02/21/2006, Contact: Larry Donovan 425–744–3403, E:\FR\FM\27JAN1.SGM 27JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 18 (Friday, January 27, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4577-4578]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-1042]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER--FRL-6671-7]


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 202-564-7167. An explanation of the ratings 
assigned to draft environmental impact statements (EISs) was published 
in the Federal Register dated April 1, 2005 (70 FR 16815).

Draft EISs

EIS No. 20050340, ERP No. D-AFS-J65451-UT, West Fork Blacks Fork 
Allotment Management Plan, Proposes to Authorize Continued Livestock 
Grazing, Township 1 North, Range 11 East, Salt Lake Principle Meridan, 
Evanston Ranger District, Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Summit County, 
UT

    Summary: EPA expressed concerns about adverse impacts from sheep 
grazing to soils and vegetation. Rating EC2.

EIS No. 20050400, ERP No. D-BLM-K65291-00, Lake Havasu Field Office 
Resource Management Plan, Implementation, Colorado River, Davis Dam in 
the north and south to Park Dam, CA and AZ

    Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed project. Rating LO.

EIS No. 20050405, ERP No. D-NPS-K39094-NV, Clean Water Coalition 
Systems Conveyance and Operations Program, Construction, Operation and 
Maintenance, City of Las Vegas, City County, NV

    Summary: EPA expressed concerns about potential impacts to water 
quality and requested additional information on wastewater discharge 
permit requirements, details on water and air quality mitigation, 
criteria for effluent allocation between Las Vegas Wash and Boulder 
Basin, measures to conserve, reuse, and recycle water, and measures to 
reduce wastewater production. Rating EC2.

EIS No. 20050424, ERP No. D-NPS-K39095-CA, Furnace Creek Water 
Collection System, Reconstruction, Death Valley National Park, 
Implementation, Inyo County, CA

    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about the proposed 
discharge of more than 120,000 gallons per day of reverse osmosis brine 
into the Furnace Creek Wash alluvium, which could affect surface water 
and groundwater quality. EPA requested that other disposal alternatives 
be considered. Rating EC2.

EIS No. 20050436, ERP No. D-NPS-F61022-MI, Isle Royale National Park 
Wilderness and Backcounty Management Plan, Implementation, MI

    Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed project. Rating LO.

EIS No. 20050446, ERP No. D-USN-E11059-00, Undersea Warfare Training 
Range (USWTR), Installation and Operation, Preferred Site (in the 
Cherry Point Operating Area) and the Alternate Sites (within the 
Virginia Capes and Jacksonville Operating Areas), NC, VA and FL

    Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed project. Rating LO.

Final EISs

EIS No. 20050391, ERP No. F-AFS-K65284-CA, Creeks Forest Health 
Recovery Project, To Develop a Network of Defensible Fuel Profile Zones 
(DFPZs), Group-Selection Timber Harvest, Individual Tree Selection, 
Lassen National Forest, Almanor Ranger District, Plumas County, CA

    Summary: EPA's previous concerns about the potential impacts to 
water and air quality, environmental justice and tribal consultation 
have been adequately addressed; therefore, EPA does not object to the 
proposed action.


[[Page 4578]]


EIS No. 20050423, ERP No. F-BLM-K65439-NV, Sloan Canyon National 
Conservation Area, Resource Management Plan, Implementation, Cities of 
Las Vegas and Henderson, Clark County, NV

    Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed project.

EIS No. 20050479, ERP No. F-SFW-A65171-00, Resident Canada Goose 
Management Plan, Evaluate Alternatives Strategies to Reduce, Manage, 
and Resident Canada Goose Population, Implementation, within the 
Conterminous U.S.

    Summary: No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.

EIS No. 20050508, ERP No. F-NPS-F65057-IN, Lincoln Boyhood National 
Memorial General Management Plan, Implementation, Lincoln City Spencer 
County, IN

    Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed project.

EIS No. 20050522, ERP No. F-NPS-G02014-TX, Big Thicket National 
Preserve Oil and Gas Management Plan, Implementation, Hardin, 
Jefferson, Orange, Liberty, Tyler, Jasper and Polk Counties, TX

    Summary: No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.

    Dated: January 24, 2006.
Ken Mittelholtz,
Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Federal Activities.
 [FR Doc. E6-1042 Filed 1-26-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.