Proposed Amendment to Initial Funded Priorities List, 36541-36543 [2016-13356]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Notices
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, June 2, 2016.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Assistant Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2016–13400 Filed 6–6–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210–01–P
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
[OMB Control No. 3090–XXXX; Docket
2016–0001; Sequence 9]
Information Collection;
Nondiscrimination in Federal Financial
Assistance Programs, GSA Form 3702
Office of Civil Rights, General
Services Administration (GSA).
ACTION: Notice of request for comments
regarding a new request for an OMB
clearance.
AGENCY:
Under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Regulatory Secretariat Division will be
submitting to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) a request to review
and approve a new information
collection requirement regarding OMB
Control No: 3090–XXXX;
Nondiscrimination in Federal Financial
Assistance Programs, GSA 3702. This
information is needed to facilitate
nondiscrimination in GSA’s Federal
Financial Assistance Programs,
consistent with Federal civil rights laws
and regulations that apply to recipients
of Federal financial assistance.
DATES: Submit comments on or before:
August 8, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Evelyn Britton, Director, External
Programs Division, Office of Civil
Rights, at telephone 202–603–1645 or
via email to evelyn.britton@gsa.gov.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments
identified by Information Collection
3090–XXXX, Nondiscrimination in
Federal Financial Assistance Programs,
GSA 3702, by any of the following
methods:
• Regulations.gov: https://
www.regulations.gov. Submit comments
via the Federal eRulemaking portal by
searching the OMB control number.
Select the link ‘‘Submit a Comment’’
that corresponds with ‘‘Information
Collection 3090–XXXX,
Nondiscrimination in Federal Financial
Assistance Programs, GSA 3702’’.
Follow the instructions provided at the
‘‘Submit a Comment’’ screen. Please
include your name, company name (if
any), and ‘‘Information Collection 3090–
XXXX, Nondiscrimination in Federal
Financial Assistance Programs, GSA
3702’’ on your attached document.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Jun 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
• Mail: General Services
Administration, Regulatory Secretariat
Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms.
Flowers/IC 3090–0228,
Nondiscrimination in Federal Financial
Assistance Programs, GSA 3702.
Instructions: Please submit comments
only and cite Information Collection
3090–XXXX, Nondiscrimination in
Federal Financial Assistance Programs,
GSA 3702, in all correspondence related
to this collection. Comments received
generally will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal and/or business
confidential information provided. To
confirm receipt of your comment(s),
please check www.regulations.gov,
approximately two to three days after
submission to verify posting (except
allow 30 days for posting of comments
submitted by mail).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Purpose
GSA has mission responsibilities
related to monitoring and enforcing
compliance with Federal civil rights
laws and regulations that apply to
Federal financial assistance programs
administered by GSA. Specifically,
those laws provide that no person on
the ground of race, color, national
origin, disability, sex or age shall be
excluded from participation in, be
denied the benefits of, or be otherwise
subjected to discrimination under any
program in connection with which
Federal financial assistance is extended
under laws administered in whole, or in
part, by GSA.
These mission responsibilities
generate the requirement to request and
obtain certain data from recipients of
Federal surplus property for the purpose
of determining compliance, such as the
number of individuals, based on race
and ethnic origin, of the recipient’s
eligible and actual serviced population;
race and national origin of those denied
participation in the recipient’s
program(s); non-English languages
encountered by the recipient’s
program(s) and how the recipient is
addressing meaningful access for
individuals that are Limited English
Proficient; whether there has been
complaints or lawsuits filed against the
recipient based on prohibited
discrimination and whether there has
been any findings; and whether the
recipient’s facilities are accessible to
qualified individuals with disabilities.
B. Annual Reporting Burden
Respondents: 1200.
Responses per Respondent: 1.
Total Responses: 1200.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
36541
Hours per Response: 2.
Total Burden Hours: 2400.
C. Public Comments
Public comments are particularly
invited on: Whether this collection of
information will have practical utility;
whether our estimate of the public
burden of this collection of information
is accurate, and based on valid
assumptions and methodology; ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information to be collected; and
ways in which we can minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on those who are to respond, through
the use of appropriate technological
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.
Obtaining Copies of Proposals:
Requesters may obtain a copy of the
information collection documents from
the General Services Administration,
Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB),
1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC
20405, telephone 202–501–4755. Please
cite OMB Control No. 3090–XXXX,
Nondiscrimination in Federal Financial
Assistance Programs, GSA 3702, in all
correspondence.
Dated: May 31, 2016.
David A. Shive,
Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016–13396 Filed 6–6–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820–34–P
GULF COAST ECOSYSTEM
RESTORATION COUNCIL
[Docket No.: 106072016–1111–03]
Proposed Amendment to Initial Funded
Priorities List
Gulf Coast Ecosystem
Restoration Council.
ACTION: Proposed amendment to Initial
Funded Priorities List.
AGENCY:
The Gulf Coast Ecosystem
Restoration Council (Council) seeks
public and Tribal comment on a
proposal to amend its Initial Funded
Priorities List (FPL) to approve
implementation funding for the
Apalachicola Bay Oyster Restoration
project in Florida (Project). The Council
is proposing to approve $3,978,000 in
implementation funding for this Project.
The Council is also proposing to
reallocate $702,000 from project
planning to project implementation,
after any remaining planning expenses
have been met. The total amount
available for implementation of the
Project would thus be $4,680,000. These
funds would be used to restore
approximately 251 acres of oyster beds,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM
07JNN1
36542
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Notices
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
which is an increase from the 219 acres
originally proposed in the FPL.
To comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
other applicable laws, the Council is
proposing to adopt an existing
Environmental Assessment (EA) that
addresses the activities in the Project. In
so doing, the Council would expedite
project implementation, reduce
planning costs and increase the
ecological benefits of this Project by
using savings in planning funds to
expand the Project by approximately 32
acres. The Council looks forward to
public and Tribal comment on this
proposal.
DATES: Comments on this proposed
amendment are due July 7, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed
amendment may be submitted as
follows:
By Email: Submit comments by email
to frcomments@restorethegulf.gov.
Email submission of comments ensures
timely receipt and enables the Council
to make them available to the public. In
general, the Council will make such
comments available for public
inspection and copying on its Web site,
www.restorethegulf.gov, without change,
including any business or personal
information provided, such as names,
addresses, email addresses and
telephone numbers. All comments
received, including attachments and
other supporting materials, will be part
of the public record and subject to
public disclosure. You should only
submit information that you wish to
make publicly available.
By Mail: Send comments to Gulf Coast
Ecosystem Restoration Council, 500
Poydras Street, Suite 1117, New
Orleans, LA 70130.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Please send questions by email to
frcomments@restorethegulf.gov or
contact Will Spoon at (504) 239–9814.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill led to
passage of the Resources and
Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist
Opportunities, and Revived Economies
of the Gulf Coast States Act (RESTORE
Act), which dedicates 80 percent of all
Clean Water Act administrative and
civil penalties related to the oil spill to
the Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund
(Trust Fund). The RESTORE Act also
created the Council, an independent
Federal entity comprised of the five Gulf
Coast states and six Federal agencies.
Among other responsibilities, the
Council administers a portion of the
Trust Fund known as the Council-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Jun 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
Selected Restoration Component in
order to ‘‘undertake projects and
programs, using the best available
science, which would restore and
protect the natural resources,
ecosystems, fisheries, marine and
wildlife habitats, beaches, coastal
wetlands, and economy of the Gulf
Coast.’’ Additional information on the
Council can be found here: https://
www.restorethegulf.gov.
On December 9, 2015, the Council
published the FPL, which includes
projects and programs approved for
funding under the Council-Selected
Restoration Component, along with
activities that the Council identified as
priorities for potential future funding.
Activities approved for funding in the
FPL are included in ‘‘Category 1’’; the
priorities for potential future funding
are in ‘‘Category 2.’’ In the FPL the
Council approved approximately $156.6
million in Category 1 restoration and
planning activities, and prioritized
twelve Category 2 activities for possible
funding in the future, subject to
environmental compliance and further
Council and public review. The Council
included planning activities for the
Project in Category 1 and
implementation activities for the Project
in Category 2 of the FPL.
The Council reserved approximately
$26.6 million for implementing priority
activities in the future. These reserved
funds may be used to support some, all
or none of the activities included in
Category 2 of the FPL and/or to support
other activities not currently under
consideration by the Council. As
appropriate, the Council intends to
review each activity in Category 2 in
order to determine whether to: (1) Move
the activity to Category 1 and approve
it for funding, (2) remove it from
Category 2 and any further
consideration, or (3) continue to include
it in Category 2. A Council decision to
amend the FPL to move an activity from
Category 2 into Category 1 must be
approved by a Council vote after
consideration of public and Tribal
comments.
II. Environmental Compliance
Prior to approving an activity for
funding in FPL Category 1, the Council
must comply with NEPA and other
Federal environmental laws. At the time
of approval of the FPL, the Council had
not complied with NEPA and other
applicable laws with respect to
implementation of the Project. The
Council did, however, recognize the
potential ecological value of the Project,
based on review conducted as part of
the FPL process. For this reason, the
Council approved $702,000 in planning
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
funds for this Project, a portion of which
would be used to complete any needed
environmental compliance activities. As
noted above, the Council placed the
implementation portion of this Project
into FPL Category 2, pending the
outcome of this environmental
compliance work and further Council
review. The estimated cost of the
Project’s implementation component
was listed at $3,978,000, which would
fund the restoration of approximately
219 acres of oyster beds in Apalachicola
Bay. Inclusion of the Project’s
implementation activities into Category
2 did not in any way commit the
Council to subsequently approve those
implementation activities for funding.
Since approval of the FPL, Florida has
collaborated with the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) to identify an
existing EA that could be used to
support Council approval of
implementation funding for this Project.
This EA was prepared by USACE in
association with a Clean Water Act
Section 404 and Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1899 programmatic
general permit (PGP) that authorizes the
Florida Department of Agricultural and
Consumer Services to conduct
aquaculture of live rock and marine
bivalves in navigable waters of the U.S.
which are within the jurisdiction of the
State of Florida, provided that such
activities comply with the terms and
conditions of the PGP.
The Council has reviewed this EA and
associated documents, including an
August 13, 2015, letter from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration regarding compliance
with the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
In addition to ESA, the EA addresses
compliance with other Federal
environmental laws, including the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, the
National Historic Preservation Act and
more. Based on this review, the Council
is proposing to adopt this EA to support
the proposed approval of
implementation funds for the Project,
provided that the Project is
implemented in accordance with the
terms and conditions of the PGP and the
design criteria set forth in the associated
ESA programmatic consultation. This
EA and the associated ESA
documentation can be found here:
https://www.restorethegulf.gov/fundedpriorities-list. (See Apalachicola Bay
Oyster Restoration Project—
Implementation.)
Apalachicola Bay Oyster Restoration
Project
If approved for implementation
funding, this Project would include the
E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM
07JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Notices
placement of approximately 50,258
cubic yards of suitable oyster reef
substrate through the use of barges and
high-pressure water. Areas to be
restored would be marked with buoys or
clearly marked stakes. Following the
completion of the planting, oyster
density sampling would be conducted
and analyzed at a minimum of six
months, one year and two years after
clutching at each restoration site.
Ecological benefits associated with
the Project would be realized through an
array of ecological services in the form
of increased fishery and wildlife habitat;
increased biodiversity and trophic
dynamics; increased filtering capacity to
improve water quality and recycle
nutrients; increased structural stability
to reduce coastal erosion and to protect
near shore resources; protection of water
quality; and the protection of healthy,
diverse and sustainable living coastal
marine resources. Beyond the fact that
oysters and oyster reef communities
represent important food sources for
many species of commercially
important fish and invertebrates,
functioning oyster reefs are also
recognized as critical structural and
community components which stabilize
and sustain a broad array of ecological
relationships. Additional outcomes
include economic benefits through
harvesting, processing, and marketing
fishery products locally and regionally
by all who enjoy high-quality seafood.
Additional information on this
Project, including metrics of success,
response to science reviews and more is
available in an activity-specific
appendix to the FPL, which can be
found here: https://
www.restorethegulf.gov. (Please see the
table on page 24 of the FPL and click on
Apalachicola Bay Oyster Restoration,
Implementation.)
Justin R. Ehrenwerth,
Executive Director, Gulf Coast Ecosystem
Restoration Council.
[FR Doc. 2016–13356 Filed 6–6–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–58–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention
Request for Nominations of
Candidates To Serve on the Clinical
Laboratory Improvement Advisory
Committee (CLIAC) and Request for
Suggested Meeting Topics for CLIAC
The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) is soliciting
nominations for membership on CLIAC
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Jun 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
and soliciting suggestions for topics to
be considered for future Committee
deliberation. CLIAC provides scientific
and technical advice and guidance to
the Secretary, Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS); the Assistant
Secretary for Health, HHS; the Director,
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC); the Commissioner,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA);
and the Administrator, Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
The advice and guidance pertain to
general issues related to improvement in
clinical laboratory quality and
laboratory medicine. In addition, the
Committee provides advice and
guidance on specific questions related
to possible revision of the CLIA
standards. Examples include providing
guidance on studies designed to
improve safety, effectiveness, efficiency,
timeliness, equity, and patientcenteredness of laboratory services;
revisions to the standards under which
clinical laboratories are regulated; the
impact of proposed revisions to the
standards on medical and laboratory
practice; and the modification of the
standards and provision of nonregulatory guidelines to accommodate
technological advances, such as new
test methods, the electronic
transmission of laboratory information,
and mechanisms to improve the
integration of public health and clinical
laboratory practices.
CLIAC consists of 20 members
including the Chair, and represents a
diverse membership across laboratory
specialties, professional roles
(laboratory management, technical
specialists, physicians, nurses) and
practice settings (academic, clinical,
public health), and includes a consumer
representative. In addition, the
Committee includes three ex officio
members (or designees), including the
Director, CDC; the Administrator, CMS;
and the Commissioner, FDA. A
nonvoting representative from the
Advanced Medical Technology
Association (AdvaMed) serves as the
industry liaison. The Designated Federal
Officer (DFO) or their designee and the
Executive Secretary are present at all
meetings to ensure meetings are within
applicable statutory, regulatory and
HHS General Administration manual
directives.
Request for Candidates: Nominations
are being sought for individuals who
have expertise and qualifications
necessary to contribute to
accomplishing CLIAC’s objectives.
Nominees will be selected by the HHS
Secretary or designee from authorities
knowledgeable across the fields of
microbiology (including bacteriology,
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
36543
mycobacteriology, mycology,
parasitology, and virology), immunology
(including histocompatibility),
chemistry, hematology, pathology
(including histopathology and cytology),
or genetic testing (including
cytogenetics); representatives from the
fields of medical technology, public
health, and clinical practice; and
consumer representatives. Members
may be invited to serve for terms of up
to four years.
The U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services policy stipulates that
Committee membership be balanced in
terms of professional training and
background, points of view represented,
and the committee’s function.
Consideration is given on the basis of
geographic, ethnic and gender
representation. Nominees must be U.S.
citizens, and cannot be full-time
employees of the U.S. Government.
Current participation on federal
workgroups or prior experience serving
on a federal advisory committee does
not disqualify a candidate; however,
HHS policy is to avoid excessive
individual service on advisory
committees and multiple committee
memberships. Committee members are
Special Government Employees,
requiring the filing of financial
disclosure reports at the beginning and
annually during their terms. CDC
reviews potential candidates for CLIAC
membership each year, and provides a
slate of nominees for consideration to
the Secretary of HHS for final selection.
HHS notifies selected candidates of
their appointment near the start of the
term in July, or as soon as the HHS
selection process is completed. Note
that the need for different expertise and
individuals to maintain the appropriate
demographic balance varies from year to
year and a candidate who is not selected
in one year may be reconsidered in a
subsequent year.
Candidates should submit the
following items to be considered for
nomination. The deadline for receipt of
materials for the 2017 term is August 1,
2016:
• Current curriculum vitae, including
complete contact information (name,
affiliation, mailing address, telephone
number, email address).
• Letter(s) of recommendation from
person(s) not employed by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human
Services.
Request for Suggested Meeting Topics:
Consideration of topics for meeting
agendas begins approximately four
months prior to each meeting. The
agendas are developed by CDC in
collaboration with CMS, FDA, and the
CLIAC Chair. Topics within the scope of
E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM
07JNN1
]]>Agencies
- GULF COAST ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION COUNCIL
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36541-36543]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13356]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
GULF COAST ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION COUNCIL
[Docket No.: 106072016-1111-03]
Proposed Amendment to Initial Funded Priorities List
AGENCY: Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council.
ACTION: Proposed amendment to Initial Funded Priorities List.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (Council) seeks
public and Tribal comment on a proposal to amend its Initial Funded
Priorities List (FPL) to approve implementation funding for the
Apalachicola Bay Oyster Restoration project in Florida (Project). The
Council is proposing to approve $3,978,000 in implementation funding
for this Project. The Council is also proposing to reallocate $702,000
from project planning to project implementation, after any remaining
planning expenses have been met. The total amount available for
implementation of the Project would thus be $4,680,000. These funds
would be used to restore approximately 251 acres of oyster beds,
[[Page 36542]]
which is an increase from the 219 acres originally proposed in the FPL.
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
other applicable laws, the Council is proposing to adopt an existing
Environmental Assessment (EA) that addresses the activities in the
Project. In so doing, the Council would expedite project
implementation, reduce planning costs and increase the ecological
benefits of this Project by using savings in planning funds to expand
the Project by approximately 32 acres. The Council looks forward to
public and Tribal comment on this proposal.
DATES: Comments on this proposed amendment are due July 7, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed amendment may be submitted as
follows:
By Email: Submit comments by email to
frcomments@restorethegulf.gov. Email submission of comments ensures
timely receipt and enables the Council to make them available to the
public. In general, the Council will make such comments available for
public inspection and copying on its Web site, www.restorethegulf.gov,
without change, including any business or personal information
provided, such as names, addresses, email addresses and telephone
numbers. All comments received, including attachments and other
supporting materials, will be part of the public record and subject to
public disclosure. You should only submit information that you wish to
make publicly available.
By Mail: Send comments to Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council,
500 Poydras Street, Suite 1117, New Orleans, LA 70130.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please send questions by email to
frcomments@restorethegulf.gov or contact Will Spoon at (504) 239-9814.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill led to passage of the Resources and
Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies
of the Gulf Coast States Act (RESTORE Act), which dedicates 80 percent
of all Clean Water Act administrative and civil penalties related to
the oil spill to the Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund (Trust Fund).
The RESTORE Act also created the Council, an independent Federal entity
comprised of the five Gulf Coast states and six Federal agencies. Among
other responsibilities, the Council administers a portion of the Trust
Fund known as the Council-Selected Restoration Component in order to
``undertake projects and programs, using the best available science,
which would restore and protect the natural resources, ecosystems,
fisheries, marine and wildlife habitats, beaches, coastal wetlands, and
economy of the Gulf Coast.'' Additional information on the Council can
be found here: https://www.restorethegulf.gov.
On December 9, 2015, the Council published the FPL, which includes
projects and programs approved for funding under the Council-Selected
Restoration Component, along with activities that the Council
identified as priorities for potential future funding. Activities
approved for funding in the FPL are included in ``Category 1''; the
priorities for potential future funding are in ``Category 2.'' In the
FPL the Council approved approximately $156.6 million in Category 1
restoration and planning activities, and prioritized twelve Category 2
activities for possible funding in the future, subject to environmental
compliance and further Council and public review. The Council included
planning activities for the Project in Category 1 and implementation
activities for the Project in Category 2 of the FPL.
The Council reserved approximately $26.6 million for implementing
priority activities in the future. These reserved funds may be used to
support some, all or none of the activities included in Category 2 of
the FPL and/or to support other activities not currently under
consideration by the Council. As appropriate, the Council intends to
review each activity in Category 2 in order to determine whether to:
(1) Move the activity to Category 1 and approve it for funding, (2)
remove it from Category 2 and any further consideration, or (3)
continue to include it in Category 2. A Council decision to amend the
FPL to move an activity from Category 2 into Category 1 must be
approved by a Council vote after consideration of public and Tribal
comments.
II. Environmental Compliance
Prior to approving an activity for funding in FPL Category 1, the
Council must comply with NEPA and other Federal environmental laws. At
the time of approval of the FPL, the Council had not complied with NEPA
and other applicable laws with respect to implementation of the
Project. The Council did, however, recognize the potential ecological
value of the Project, based on review conducted as part of the FPL
process. For this reason, the Council approved $702,000 in planning
funds for this Project, a portion of which would be used to complete
any needed environmental compliance activities. As noted above, the
Council placed the implementation portion of this Project into FPL
Category 2, pending the outcome of this environmental compliance work
and further Council review. The estimated cost of the Project's
implementation component was listed at $3,978,000, which would fund the
restoration of approximately 219 acres of oyster beds in Apalachicola
Bay. Inclusion of the Project's implementation activities into Category
2 did not in any way commit the Council to subsequently approve those
implementation activities for funding.
Since approval of the FPL, Florida has collaborated with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to identify an existing EA that could
be used to support Council approval of implementation funding for this
Project. This EA was prepared by USACE in association with a Clean
Water Act Section 404 and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899 programmatic general permit (PGP) that authorizes the Florida
Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services to conduct aquaculture
of live rock and marine bivalves in navigable waters of the U.S. which
are within the jurisdiction of the State of Florida, provided that such
activities comply with the terms and conditions of the PGP.
The Council has reviewed this EA and associated documents,
including an August 13, 2015, letter from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration regarding compliance with the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). In addition to ESA, the EA addresses compliance with
other Federal environmental laws, including the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the National Historic
Preservation Act and more. Based on this review, the Council is
proposing to adopt this EA to support the proposed approval of
implementation funds for the Project, provided that the Project is
implemented in accordance with the terms and conditions of the PGP and
the design criteria set forth in the associated ESA programmatic
consultation. This EA and the associated ESA documentation can be found
here: https://www.restorethegulf.gov/funded-priorities-list. (See
Apalachicola Bay Oyster Restoration Project--Implementation.)
Apalachicola Bay Oyster Restoration Project
If approved for implementation funding, this Project would include
the
[[Page 36543]]
placement of approximately 50,258 cubic yards of suitable oyster reef
substrate through the use of barges and high-pressure water. Areas to
be restored would be marked with buoys or clearly marked stakes.
Following the completion of the planting, oyster density sampling would
be conducted and analyzed at a minimum of six months, one year and two
years after clutching at each restoration site.
Ecological benefits associated with the Project would be realized
through an array of ecological services in the form of increased
fishery and wildlife habitat; increased biodiversity and trophic
dynamics; increased filtering capacity to improve water quality and
recycle nutrients; increased structural stability to reduce coastal
erosion and to protect near shore resources; protection of water
quality; and the protection of healthy, diverse and sustainable living
coastal marine resources. Beyond the fact that oysters and oyster reef
communities represent important food sources for many species of
commercially important fish and invertebrates, functioning oyster reefs
are also recognized as critical structural and community components
which stabilize and sustain a broad array of ecological relationships.
Additional outcomes include economic benefits through harvesting,
processing, and marketing fishery products locally and regionally by
all who enjoy high-quality seafood.
Additional information on this Project, including metrics of
success, response to science reviews and more is available in an
activity-specific appendix to the FPL, which can be found here: https://www.restorethegulf.gov. (Please see the table on page 24 of the FPL
and click on Apalachicola Bay Oyster Restoration, Implementation.)
Justin R. Ehrenwerth,
Executive Director, Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council.
[FR Doc. 2016-13356 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-58-P
