Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplement to the Statewide Oil and Gas Final Environmental Impact Statement and Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans (RMPs), Montana, 5081-5082 [E7-1694]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 22 / Friday, February 2, 2007 / Notices
(fishing, hunting, wildlife observation,
wildlife photography, environmental
education, and interpretation) would
continue at present levels.
Alternative B is the Service’s
proposed action and basis for the draft
CCP. This alternative would prioritize
habitats with high probability of
restoration for management. Other
habitats may only be partially restored
or minimally managed. Research and
monitoring would increase, and
scientific knowledge required to restore
upland and wetland plant and animal
communities would be shared (with the
public and other resource managers).
Some visitor services would be expected
to decrease as some staff and funding
shift to habitat restoration.
Environmental education would
increase.
In Alternative C, waterfowl habitat
management and waterfowl production
would be emphasized over other refuge
programs. Research and monitoring
would focus on actions that enhance
waterfowl habitat, increase waterfowl
nest densities, and increase nest and
brood survival. Visitor service programs
that use or enhance waterfowl-related
activities, such as hunting, wildlife
viewing, or environmental education,
would be emphasized over other
activities.
Management under Alternative D
would restore, to the fullest extent,
ecological processes, vegetation
communities, and wildlife characteristic
of the presettlement period. Research
and monitoring efforts would focus on
strategies that enhance native plant and
animal communities. Public uses that
are compatible with or that support
restoration efforts would be
emphasized. Interpretation and
environmental education would be
expanded, with an emphasis on natural
plant and animal communities,
ecological processes, and restoration.
The proposed action (Alternative B)
was selected because it best meets the
purpose and goals of the Refuges, as
well as the goals of the National
Wildlife Refuge System. The proposed
action will also benefit federally listed
species, shore birds, migrating and
nesting waterfowl, and neotropical
migrants. Environmental education and
partnerships will result in improved
wildlife-dependent recreational
opportunities. Cultural and historical
resources as well as federally listed
species will be protected.
Opportunity for public input will be
provided at a public meeting to be
scheduled soon. The specific date and
time for the public meeting is yet to be
determined, but will be announced via
local media and a newsletter. All
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:13 Feb 01, 2007
Jkt 211001
information provided voluntarily by
mail, by phone, or at public meetings
(e.g., names, addresses, letters of
comment, input recorded during
meetings) becomes part of the official
public record. If requested under the
Freedom of Information Act by a private
citizen or organization, the Service may
provide copies of such information. The
environmental review of this project
will be conducted in accordance with
the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.); NEPA Regulations (40 CFR parts
1500–1508); other appropriate Federal
laws and regulations; Executive Order
12996; the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997; and
Service policies and procedures for
compliance with those laws and
regulations.
Dated: October 3, 2006.
James J. Slack,
Deputy Regional Director, Region 6, Denver,
CO.
Editorial Note: This document was
received at the Office of the Federal Register
on January 30, 2007.
[FR Doc. E7–1712 Filed 2–1–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[MT–029–1310–DS 050E]
Notice of Availability of the Draft
Supplement to the Statewide Oil and
Gas Final Environmental Impact
Statement and Amendment of the
Powder River and Billings Resource
Management Plans (RMPs), Montana
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: By Order of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Montana,
pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 and the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321), as amended, the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has
prepared a Draft Supplement to the
Statewide Oil and Gas Final
Environmental Impact Statement and
will amend the Powder River and
Billings RMPs (Draft SEIS/Amendment).
DATES: The 90-day public comment
period will begin the date the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
publishes their Notice of Availability in
the Federal Register. Tentative public
meetings to gather comments on the
draft will be held in Montana at the
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
5081
following locations: Billings, March 26,
2007; Hardin, March 27, 2007; Lame
Deer, March 28, 2007; Broadus, March
29, 2007; and Miles City, March 30,
2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods (your
name and mailing address must be
submitted as part of your comments):
• Web Site: https://www.blm.gov/eis/
mt/milescity_seis/.
• Fax: (406) 233–2921.
• Mail: CBNG Draft SEIS Comments,
Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box
219, Miles City, Montana 59301 or
deliver to 111 Garryowen Road, Miles
City, Montana.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Bloom, Project Manager, BLM,
(406) 233–2852.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Powder River and Billings RMP areas
comprise 1,506,011 acres of BLM
managed surface and 5,009,784 acres of
BLM managed mineral estate. There are
3,185,016 acres of BLM managed oil and
gas. The Powder River RMP area
includes Powder River and Treasure
Counties; and portions of Big Horn,
Carter, Custer, and Rosebud Counties.
The Billings RMP area includes Carbon,
Golden Valley, Musselshell, Stillwater,
Sweet Grass, Wheatland, and
Yellowstone Counties and the
remaining portion of Big Horn County.
This Draft SEIS is supplementing the
2003 Statewide Oil and Gas Final
Environmental Impact Statement and
Amendment of the Powder River and
Billings RMPs (Statewide Document).
The Notice of Availability was
published in the Federal Register on
January 17, 2003, and the Record of
Decision was approved on April 30,
2003. Several lawsuits were filed against
the BLM decision immediately
following the publication of the Record
of Decision. Two of the lawsuits
resulted in an April 5, 2005, ruling by
the U.S. District Court ordering the BLM
to prepare a Supplemental EIS to
consider a phased development
alternative for coal bed natural gas
(CBNG) production in the Billings and
Powder River RMP areas of Montana.
Topics addressed in the Draft SEIS/
Amendment include those provided or
recommended by the U.S. District Court:
Phased CBNG development; the
inclusion of the proposed Tongue River
Railroad in the cumulative impact
analysis; and a discussion on how
private water well mitigation
agreements help alleviate the impacts of
methane migration and groundwater
drawdown. The BLM published the
Notice of Intent to plan for the SEIS/
Amendment in the Federal Register on
E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM
02FEN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
5082
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 22 / Friday, February 2, 2007 / Notices
August 5, 2005. A 30-day scoping
period was held to help the BLM define
‘‘phased development’’ and to identify
relevant issues that should be
considered and analyzed in the Draft
SEIS/Amendment. The Draft SEIS/
Amendment has been prepared by an
interdisciplinary team of specialists
with expertise in archeology, air quality,
economics, fisheries, geology,
hydrology, minerals, paleontology,
recreation, sociology, soils, vegetation
and wildlife. Three new alternatives
have been analyzed in the Draft SEIS/
Amendment to consider phased
development. Under Alternative F, the
BLM would limit the number of federal
applications for permit to drill (APD)
approved each year cumulatively and in
each fourth order watershed. The BLM
would also limit the percentage of
disturbance within identified crucial
sagebrush habitat. Finally, the BLM
would place a limit on the volume of
untreated water discharged to surface
waters from federal CBNG wells within
each fourth order watershed. Under
Alternative G, development of CBNG on
federal leases in the Billings and
Powder River RMP areas would be done
following the same management actions
as described under Alternative F.
However, while BLM would limit the
number of federal APDs approved each
year cumulatively, development would
be limited to a low range of predicted
wells (6,470) from the Statewide
Document Reasonably Foreseeable
Development scenario. Alternative H,
the BLM’s preferred alternative, has
three key components. First, a phased
development approach would be
implemented where CBNG proposals
would be reviewed against four filters or
screens to determine if the proposal
needs to be modified. Second, this
alternative would include extensive
requirements that an operator must meet
when submitting a Plan of Development
(POD). Third, mitigation measures and
subsequent modifications to existing
operations via adaptive management
would be considered and applied to
each POD, as appropriate.
Comments and information submitted
on the Draft SEIS/Amendment,
including names, email addresses, and
street addresses of respondents, will be
available for public review and
disclosure at the above address. The
BLM will not accept anonymous
comments. Individuals may request
confidentiality. Individuals who wish to
withhold their names or addresses from
public review or from disclosure under
the Freedom of Information Act must
state this prominently at the beginning
of their written comments. Such
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:13 Feb 01, 2007
Jkt 211001
requests will be honored to the extent
allowed by law. All submissions from
organizations and businesses, and from
individuals identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of
organizations or businesses, will be
available for public inspection in their
entirety.
Donald S. Smurthwaite,
Acting State Director.
[FR Doc. E7–1694 Filed 2–1–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–$$–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Sunil Bhasin, M.D.; Revocation of
Registration
On August 4, 2005, the Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration, issued an Order to
Show Cause to Sunil Bhasin, M.D.
(Respondent), of San Bernardino, CA.
The Show Cause Order proposed to
revoke Respondent’s Certificate of
Registration, BB2195116, as a
practitioner, on the ground that
Respondent had surrendered his
California medical license, and was
therefore without authority to handle
controlled substances in the state where
he practiced medicine. Show Cause
Order at 1. The Show Cause Order
further notified Respondent of his right
to a hearing. Id. at 2.
The Show Cause Order was served by
certified mail, return receipt requested.
On September 2, 2005, Respondent
acknowledged receipt of the Show
Cause Order as demonstrated by the
signed return receipt card which is
contained in the investigative file.
In a letter dated September 5, 2005,
Respondent wrote the Deputy Assistant
Administrator asserting that he had
rejected the Medical Board of
California’s settlement stipulation.
Respondent further asserted that the
stipulation was illegal because its terms
were illusory, fraudulent and
unconscionable and that he was
litigating these issues in federal district
court.
On September 26, 2005, the
Government filed a request with the
Office of Administrative Law Judges to
docket the matter for a hearing. While
the Government noted that Respondent
‘‘did not specifically request a hearing,’’
it expressed the view that the case
required an on-the-record ‘‘factual
determination of the licensing issue’’
before the case was transmitted to me
for final agency action. Govt. Req. to
Docket Matter for Hearing at 1.
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Simultaneously, the Government
moved for summary disposition. The
basis of the Government’s motion was
that a Diversion Investigator (DI) would
testify that she had received documents
from the Medical Board of California
(MBC) which showed that Respondent
had surrendered his state license on
September 27, 2004, that the MBC had
adopted the surrender stipulation on
December 6, 2004, and that the MBC
Web site indicated that Respondent’s
license had been surrendered. Id. at 1–
2. Attached to the motion were
documents supporting each of the
Government’s contentions.
The matter was assigned
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mary
Ellen Bittner. On October 7, 2005, the
ALJ issued a Memorandum to Parties
(Memo 1). In Memo 1, the ALJ offered
Respondent the opportunity to respond
to the Government’s request to docket
the matter for hearing no later than
October 31, 2005. Memo 1, at 2.
A copy of Memo 1 was sent to
Respondent by certified mail. The
mailing, however, was returned
unclaimed. Thereafter, the ALJ issued a
new Memorandum to Parties which
offered Respondent the opportunity to
respond to the Government’s request by
December 19, 2005. Memorandum to
Parties 1 (Nov. 28, 2005) (Memo 2). The
ALJ further directed that Memo 2 be
sent to Respondent by both registered
mail with restricted delivery and first
class mail. See id. Again, Respondent
did not respond. See Memorandum to
Parties 2 (Mar. 24, 2006) (Memo 3).
Thereafter, on January 19, 2006, the
Government moved to terminate the
proceedings. Motion to Terminate
Proceedings 1. The Government also
requested that the ALJ find that
Respondent had waived his right to a
hearing. Id.
On March 24, 2006, the ALJ issued a
further Memorandum to Parties (Memo
3). In Memo 3, the ALJ offered
Respondent the opportunity to respond
to the Government’s motion to terminate
by April 13, 2006. Memo 3, at 2. When
once again, Respondent failed to
respond, the ALJ granted the
Government’s motion and ordered that
the proceedings be terminated. See
Order Terminating Proceedings 2. In her
order, the ALJ also found that
Respondent had failed to request a
hearing and had waived his right to a
hearing. See id.
The investigative file was then
forwarded to me for final agency action.
I adopt the ALJ’s finding that
Respondent has waived his right to a
hearing. I therefore enter this final order
without a hearing based on information
contained in the investigative file.
E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM
02FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 22 (Friday, February 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5081-5082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-1694]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[MT-029-1310-DS 050E]
Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplement to the Statewide
Oil and Gas Final Environmental Impact Statement and Amendment of the
Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans (RMPs), Montana
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: By Order of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Montana, pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321), as
amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Draft
Supplement to the Statewide Oil and Gas Final Environmental Impact
Statement and will amend the Powder River and Billings RMPs (Draft
SEIS/Amendment).
DATES: The 90-day public comment period will begin the date the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes their Notice of
Availability in the Federal Register. Tentative public meetings to
gather comments on the draft will be held in Montana at the following
locations: Billings, March 26, 2007; Hardin, March 27, 2007; Lame Deer,
March 28, 2007; Broadus, March 29, 2007; and Miles City, March 30,
2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods
(your name and mailing address must be submitted as part of your
comments):
Web Site: https://www.blm.gov/eis/mt/milescity_seis/.
Fax: (406) 233-2921.
Mail: CBNG Draft SEIS Comments, Bureau of Land Management,
P.O. Box 219, Miles City, Montana 59301 or deliver to 111 Garryowen
Road, Miles City, Montana.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Bloom, Project Manager, BLM,
(406) 233-2852.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Powder River and Billings RMP areas
comprise 1,506,011 acres of BLM managed surface and 5,009,784 acres of
BLM managed mineral estate. There are 3,185,016 acres of BLM managed
oil and gas. The Powder River RMP area includes Powder River and
Treasure Counties; and portions of Big Horn, Carter, Custer, and
Rosebud Counties. The Billings RMP area includes Carbon, Golden Valley,
Musselshell, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Wheatland, and Yellowstone
Counties and the remaining portion of Big Horn County. This Draft SEIS
is supplementing the 2003 Statewide Oil and Gas Final Environmental
Impact Statement and Amendment of the Powder River and Billings RMPs
(Statewide Document). The Notice of Availability was published in the
Federal Register on January 17, 2003, and the Record of Decision was
approved on April 30, 2003. Several lawsuits were filed against the BLM
decision immediately following the publication of the Record of
Decision. Two of the lawsuits resulted in an April 5, 2005, ruling by
the U.S. District Court ordering the BLM to prepare a Supplemental EIS
to consider a phased development alternative for coal bed natural gas
(CBNG) production in the Billings and Powder River RMP areas of
Montana. Topics addressed in the Draft SEIS/Amendment include those
provided or recommended by the U.S. District Court: Phased CBNG
development; the inclusion of the proposed Tongue River Railroad in the
cumulative impact analysis; and a discussion on how private water well
mitigation agreements help alleviate the impacts of methane migration
and groundwater drawdown. The BLM published the Notice of Intent to
plan for the SEIS/Amendment in the Federal Register on
[[Page 5082]]
August 5, 2005. A 30-day scoping period was held to help the BLM define
``phased development'' and to identify relevant issues that should be
considered and analyzed in the Draft SEIS/Amendment. The Draft SEIS/
Amendment has been prepared by an interdisciplinary team of specialists
with expertise in archeology, air quality, economics, fisheries,
geology, hydrology, minerals, paleontology, recreation, sociology,
soils, vegetation and wildlife. Three new alternatives have been
analyzed in the Draft SEIS/Amendment to consider phased development.
Under Alternative F, the BLM would limit the number of federal
applications for permit to drill (APD) approved each year cumulatively
and in each fourth order watershed. The BLM would also limit the
percentage of disturbance within identified crucial sagebrush habitat.
Finally, the BLM would place a limit on the volume of untreated water
discharged to surface waters from federal CBNG wells within each fourth
order watershed. Under Alternative G, development of CBNG on federal
leases in the Billings and Powder River RMP areas would be done
following the same management actions as described under Alternative F.
However, while BLM would limit the number of federal APDs approved each
year cumulatively, development would be limited to a low range of
predicted wells (6,470) from the Statewide Document Reasonably
Foreseeable Development scenario. Alternative H, the BLM's preferred
alternative, has three key components. First, a phased development
approach would be implemented where CBNG proposals would be reviewed
against four filters or screens to determine if the proposal needs to
be modified. Second, this alternative would include extensive
requirements that an operator must meet when submitting a Plan of
Development (POD). Third, mitigation measures and subsequent
modifications to existing operations via adaptive management would be
considered and applied to each POD, as appropriate.
Comments and information submitted on the Draft SEIS/Amendment,
including names, email addresses, and street addresses of respondents,
will be available for public review and disclosure at the above
address. The BLM will not accept anonymous comments. Individuals may
request confidentiality. Individuals who wish to withhold their names
or addresses from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of
Information Act must state this prominently at the beginning of their
written comments. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed
by law. All submissions from organizations and businesses, and from
individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of
organizations or businesses, will be available for public inspection in
their entirety.
Donald S. Smurthwaite,
Acting State Director.
[FR Doc. E7-1694 Filed 2-1-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P
