Notices. Receipt of application; notice of availability

6,791 words·~31 min read·/register/2006/12/29/06-9946

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 6820-PE-M DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service Availability of a Proposed Safe Harbor Agreement for Five Species of Birds in Kauai, Maui, HI, and Honolulu Counties, HI AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Receipt of application; notice of availability. SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (we, the Service) has received applications for enhancement of survival permits pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), from four Resource Conservation and Development councils (RC&Ds, Applicants) in the State of Hawaii:

Garden Island RC&D, Kauai County; Tri-Isle RC&D, Maui County; Big Island RC&D, Hawaii County; and Oahu RC&D, Honolulu County. The permit applications include a proposed programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement

(SHA)between the Applicants and the Service. The proposed SHA provides for voluntary habitat restoration, maintenance, enhancement, or creation activities to enhance the habitat and recovery of Hawaiian goose ( *Branta sandvicensis* ), Hawaiian duck ( *Anas wyvilliana* ), Hawaiian moorhen ( *Gallinula chloropus sandvicensis* ), Hawaiian coot ( *Fulica alai* ), and Hawaiian stilt ( *Himantopus mexicanus knudseni* ) (collectively “Covered Species”) on non-Federal lands in the State of Hawaii. The proposed duration of both the SHA and permits is 50 years. The Service believes that the proposed SHA and permit applications may be eligible for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The basis for this is contained in a draft Environmental Action Statement, which also is available for public review. The Service and the State of Hawaii's Department of Fish and Wildlife (DOFAW) hold concurrent processes for the review of both Federal and State permit applications and draft Safe Harbor Agreements. As part of the DOFAW process, public meetings will take place to allow for discussion and comment. Dates and locations for which DOFAW has scheduled public meetings are: December 5, 2006, Lanai High School, Lanai City; December 7, 2006, Kalanimoku Building, Room 132, Honolulu; December 12, 2006, Lihue Neighborhood Community Center, Lihue; December 13, 2006: Mitchell Pauole Community Center, Kaunakakai; December 19, 2006, Velma McWayne Santos Community Center, Wailuku; December 21, 2006, Hilo Division of Forestry and Wildlife Office, Hilo. All meetings are scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. DATES: Written comments must be received by 5 p.m. on January 29, 2007. ADDRESSES: Please address comments to Patrick Leonard, Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room #3-122, Honolulu, Hawaii, facsimile number

(808)792-9580. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Newman, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, (see ADDRESSES ), telephone

(808)792-9400. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Document Availability Individuals wishing copies of the permit applications, the draft Environmental Action Statement, or copies of the full text of the proposed SHA, including a map of the proposed permit areas, references, and description of the proposed permit areas, should contact the office and personnel listed in the ADDRESSES section. Documents also will be available for public inspection at the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES ), by appointment between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. We specifically request information, views, and opinions from the public on the proposed Federal action of issuing these permits, including the identification of any aspects of the human environment not already analyzed in our draft Environmental Action Statement. Further, we specifically solicit information regarding the adequacy of the proposed SHA as measured against our permit issuance criteria found in 50 CFR 17.22(c). Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their identity from the administrative record. We will honor such requests to the extent allowed by law. Respondents wishing us to withhold their identity ( *e.g.* , individual name, home address and home phone number) must state this prominently at the beginning of their comments. We will make all submissions from organizations, agencies or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives of officials of such entities, available for public inspection in their entirety. Background A SHA encourages private landowners to conduct voluntary conservation activities and assures them that they will not be subjected to increased listed species restrictions should their beneficial stewardship efforts result in increased numbers of listed species. Application requirements and issuance criteria for enhancement of survival permits and SHAs are found in 50 CFR 17.22(c). The primary objective of this proposed SHA is to encourage voluntary habitat restoration, maintenance or enhancement activities to benefit the Covered Species on private lands. Individual landowners who enter into the provisions of a Cooperative Agreement with Applicants are relieved from any additional ESA section 9 liability beyond that which exists at the time the Cooperative Agreement is signed and a Certificate of Inclusion is issued. As long as enrolled landowners allow the agreed-upon conservation measures to be completed on their property and agree to maintain their baseline responsibilities, they may make any other lawful use of the property during the term of the Cooperative Agreement, even if such use results in the take of individuals of the Covered Species or harm to the Covered Species' habitat above the baseline. As proposed in the SHA, landowners on non-Federal land in the State of Hawaii, as identified by the Draft Hawaiian Goose Recovery Plan and Draft Hawaiian Waterbird Recovery Plan, may be enrolled by the Applicants under the proposed SHA. Individual landowners, as Cooperators, would receive Certificate of Inclusions when they sign Cooperative Agreements. Each Cooperative Agreement would include:

(1)A map of the property with a delineation of the portion of the property to be enrolled;

(2)the property's baseline described as a population estimate (Hawaiian goose) or habitat acres or miles (Hawaiian duck, Hawaiian moorhen, Hawaiian coot, Hawaiian stilt);

(3)documentation of the biological surveys conducted to determine the baseline;

(4)a description of the specific conservation measures to be completed; and

(5)the responsibilities of the Cooperator and the Applicants. The Applicants would provide draft copies of the Cooperative Agreements to the Service and DOFAW for an opportunity to review and concur with the recommended management activities and conservation measures. The Service and DOFAW would have a period of 30 days in which to make comments on the Cooperative Agreements. Upon address of comments from the Service and DOFAW, the Applicants would proceed to finalize the Cooperative Agreements. The Applicants, as the Permittees, would be responsible for annual monitoring and reporting related to implementation of the SHA and Cooperative Agreements and fulfillment of provisions by the Cooperators. As specified in the proposed SHA, the Applicants would issue yearly reports to the Service related to implementation of the program. As specified in the RC&D and USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS)Memorandum of Understanding (Exhibit 1 of SHA), NRCS would assist the RC&Ds with the completion of Cooperative Agreements, monitoring, and annual reports. Each Cooperative Agreement would cover conservation activities to create, maintain, restore, or enhance wetlands, uplands, or riparian habitat for one or more of the Covered Species and assist in achievement of the recovery goals of the species. These actions, where appropriate, could include (but are not limited to):

(1)Restoration of habitat form and function;

(2)installation of fences to exclude or control access by livestock and other domestic animals;

(3)assessment and control of feral ungulates and introduced predators;

(4)control of invasive plants and reestablishment of native plants that are beneficial to the Covered Species;

(5)establishment of riparian buffers as well as facilitation of the implementation of other objectives recommended by the recovery plans for the Covered Species. The overall goal of Cooperative Agreements entered into under the proposed SHA is to produce conservation measures that are mutually beneficial to the Cooperators and the long-term existence of the Covered Species. Based upon the probable species' response time for the Covered Species to reach a net conservation benefit, the Service estimates it will take 5 years of implementing the planned conservation measures to fully reach a net conservation benefit; some level of benefit would likely occur within a shorter time period. Cooperative Agreements under the proposed SHA would have at least 10 years' duration. After maintenance of the restored/created/enhanced habitat for the Covered Species on the property for the agreed-upon term, Cooperators may then conduct otherwise lawful activities on their property that result in the partial or total elimination of the habitat improvements and the taking of the Covered Species. However, the restrictions on returning a property to its original baseline condition include:

(1)The Cooperator must demonstrate that baseline conditions were maintained during the term of the Cooperative Agreement and the conservation measures necessary for achieving a net conservation benefit were carried out;

(2)the Applicant and the Service will be notified a minimum of 60 days prior to the activity and given the opportunity to capture, rescue, and/or relocate any of the Covered Species; and

(3)return to baseline conditions must be completed within the term of the Certificate of Inclusion issued to the Applicant. Cooperative Agreements could be extended if the Applicant's permit is renewed and that renewal allows for such an extension. The Service believes that approval of the proposed SHA may qualify for a categorical exclusion under NEPA, as provided by the Department of Interior Manual (516 DM 2, Appendix 1 and 516 DM 6, Appendix 1) based on the following criteria:

(1)Implementation of the SHA would result in minor or negligible effects on federally listed, proposed, and candidate species and their habitats;

(2)implementation of the SHA would result in minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources; and

(3)impacts of the SHA, considered together with the impacts of other past, present and reasonably foreseeable similarly situated projects, would not result, over time, in cumulative effects to environmental values or resources which would be considered significant. This is more fully explained in our draft Environmental Action Statement. The Service will consider public comments in making its final determination on whether to prepare such additional NEPA documentation. Decision The Service provides this notice pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA and pursuant to implementing regulations for NEPA (40 CFR 1506.6). We will evaluate the permit application, the proposed SHA, and comments submitted thereon to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and NEPA regulations. If the requirements are met, we will sign the proposed SHA and issue an enhancement of survival permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA to the Applicants for take of the Covered Species incidental to otherwise lawful activities of the project. We will not make a final decision until after the end of the 30 day comment period and will fully consider all comments received during the comment period. Patrick Leonard, Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, Honolulu, Hawaii. [FR Doc. E6-22385 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service Final Environmental Impact Statement and Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge in Illinois AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of availability of record of decision. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce our decision and the availability of the Record of Decision

(ROD)for the Final Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

(CCP)for Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)requirements. ADDRESSES: The ROD and Final EIS/CCP may be viewed at Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Headquarters in Marion, Illinois. You may obtain a copy of the ROD on the planning Web site at *http://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/craborchard* or by writing to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Conservation Planning, Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Frisk,

(618)997-3344. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce our decision and the availability of the Record of Decision

(ROD)for the Final Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)and Comprehensive Conservation Plan

(CCP)for Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge in accordance with NEPA requirements (40 CFR 1506.6(b)). We completed a thorough analysis of the environmental, social, and economic considerations, which we included in the Final EIS/CCP. The Final EIS/CCP was released to the public and a notice of availability was published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 52138-52139, September 1, 2006). The ROD was signed by the Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Midwest Region, on October 27, 2006, and documents the selection of Alternative E, the Preferred Alternative in the Final EIS/CCP. The CCP for Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) will guide the management and administration of the Refuge for the next 15 years. Alternative E, as described in the Final EIS, is the foundation for the CCP. Five alternatives and their consequences were developed for the Draft EIS and CCP, which was released and a notice was published in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 60364-60365, October 17, 2005). Alternative A—Current Management (No Action). The current level of effort on fish and wildlife and habitat management would continue. The current authorized recreation uses and patterns would continue. Current industrial leasing policies would remain in place. The amount of agricultural land would remain fairly constant. Alternative B—Reduced Habitat Fragmentation: Wildlife-dependent Recreation Emphasis with Land Exchange. The Refuge would emphasize the reduction of habitat fragmentation by making small changes in the current habitat cover to gain larger, unfragmented blocks of both forest and grassland habitats. The alternative would offer increased recreational opportunities by exchanging land in the developed northwestern portion of the Refuge for undeveloped land at another location. The industrial use policy would be updated. The amount of land in row crops would decrease slightly, and the Refuge would convert fescue pastures to other cool- and warm-season grasses over a period of 15 years. Alternative C—Open Land Management: Consolidate and Improve Recreation. The Refuge would take advantage of the lands that are already open and consolidate existing large blocks of open land for grassland dependent species, especially birds. The Refuge would satisfy the Refuge's recreation purpose as much as possible within Service budget priorities through consolidating and upgrading facilities. If an industrial tenant left the Refuge, the Refuge would not seek a new tenant for the vacant facility. The amount of land in row crops would increase slightly. Alternative D—Forest Land Management: Consolidate and Improve Recreation. The Refuge would manage two large forest blocks to benefit area-sensitive forest birds and maintain some early successional habitat. The Refuge would satisfy the Refuge's recreation purpose as much as possible within Service budget priorities through consolidating and upgrading facilities. If an industrial tenant left the Refuge, the Refuge would not seek a new tenant for the vacant facility. The amount of land in row crops and hay fields would decrease slightly. Alternative E—Reduced Habitat Fragmentation: Consolidate and Improve Recreation (Preferred Alternative). The Refuge would emphasize the reduction of habitat fragmentation by making small changes in the current habitat cover to gain larger, unfragmented blocks of both forest and grassland habitats. The Refuge would satisfy the Refuge's recreation purpose as much as possible within Service budget priorities through consolidating and upgrading facilities. If an industrial tenant left the Refuge and their facilities were suitable for occupancy, the Refuge would make them available for new tenants. The amount of land in row crops would decrease slightly. Elements common to all alternatives included: enough food for 6.4 million goose-use-days for wintering Canada Geese would be provided; federal and state listed species would be protected; resident fish and wildlife populations would be maintained or enhanced; communication between the Refuge and the community would be improved; cultural resources would be protected; and the Refuge's Fire Management Plan would guide the fire program. In addition the following policies would apply under all alternatives: classifying lands for various uses would be dropped; the length of stay at campgrounds would be limited to 14 consecutive nights; group camps would be required to provide environmental education; recreational fees would be made consistent with the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2005; small competitive fishing events would be limited to three events per year per organization; and mowing of pastures and fields would take place after August 1 to protect nesting birds. The Service's Basis for Decision: All action alternatives (B through E) are considered environmentally preferable to Alternative A (No Action). Alternative E is the alternative considered to have the least adverse effect on the physical and biological environments. The rationale for choosing Alternative E as the best alternative for the CCP is based on the impact of this alternative on the purposes of the Refuge and the issues and needs that surfaced during the planning process. Other factors considered in the decision were public and resource benefits gained for the cost incurred and the extensive public comment. Alternative E is likely to lead to improvements under the agricultural, wildlife conservation, and recreation purposes of the Refuge. Alternative E is also expected to lead to wider and fairer access to public recreational opportunities. Alternative A was not selected because it would inadequately address the needs and issues that were documented during planning. Alternative B was not selected because the land exchange, which was the heart of the alternative, could not be accomplished within the authorities of the Department of the Interior. Alternatives C and D served to contrast an emphasis on grassland birds with an emphasis on forest birds, and we learned that only marginal benefits would accrue to either group of birds over the reduced habitat fragmentation approach of Alternative B or E. Public Comments on Final EIS: During the 30-day waiting period, we received 67 written comments. With one exception, the comments did not raise any issues not addressed in the Final EIS, and the comments did not result in changes to the analysis of environmental consequences or affect our response to similar comments in the Final EIS. One comment pointed out an inconsistency in the document, which was introduced in the final editing, related to the acres of new moist soil impoundments in the preferred alternative. The Refuge's intention is, as indicated by the response on page 181 of the Final EIS, to develop 150-200 additional acres of moist soil impoundments. The stand-alone CCP will reflect that intention. A new topic raised during the waiting period was an advocacy for rock climbing on the Refuge. The Access Fund requested that we complete a Compatibility Determination for rock climbing and amend the Final EIS/CCP. Other citizens and groups also expressed an interest in allowing access for climbing. The Record of Decision details Service guidance for determining appropriate and compatible uses and the finding by the Refuge Manager that rock climbing at Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge is not appropriate. As a result of this finding and according to Service procedure, rock climbing on the Refuge has been denied by the Refuge Manager without determining compatibility, and the Final EIS has not been amended. All written comments received during the waiting period are available for review at the Refuge headquarters in Marion, Illinois. Measures to Minimize Environmental Harm: Because all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been incorporated into the preferred alternative, no mitigation measures have been identified. Means to minimize environmental harm are complemented by a Biological Assessment that was prepared to address any impacts to federally-listed threatened or endangered species. This assessment calls for a tiered approach, whereby impacts and mitigation will be handled on a project-specific basis when project scope and design is articulated. The Biological Assessment concluded that implementation of Alternative E is not likely to adversely affect the Bald Eagle and not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Indiana bat. In addition, compatibility determinations were prepared for all uses identified in Alternative E, and these determinations contain stipulations to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any environmental impacts from these uses and associated facilities. Dated: November 20, 2006. Charles M. Wooley, Acting Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. [FR Doc. E6-22384 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service Notice of Intent To Conduct Restoration Planning for the Bradley Beach Mystery Spill of February 2004, Monmouth and Ocean Counties, NJ AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Interior has designated the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to act on behalf of the U.S. Department of the Interior

(DOI)as natural resource trustee (Trustee) with respect to the February 2004 oil spill in the Bradley Beach, NJ, area (the incident). The Service has determined that the impacts of the incident warrant conducting a natural resource damage assessment that will include restoration planning. The incident has been referred to by a number of names, including the Bradley Beach Mystery Spill, the Monmouth County Mystery Spill, the Monmouth and Ocean Counties Mystery Spill, the Brick Township Mystery Spill, and the Brick Township Tarball Mystery Spill. The DOI is hereby providing notice of efforts to plan restoration actions for injuries resulting from the incident. The purpose of this restoration planning is to evaluate potential injuries to natural resources and lost services and use that information to determine the need for and scale of restoration actions. ADDRESSES: Clay Stern, Environmental Contaminants Branch, New Jersey Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 927 N. Main St., Pleasantville, NJ 08232. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clay Stern, at 609-646-9310, extension 27 (telephone), or *clay_stern@fws.gov* (e-mail), or address under ADDRESSES . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On or about February 3, 2004, tar-balls and tar-patties that were chemically and physically consistent with a number 6 fuel oil began washing ashore from the Atlantic Ocean onto the South Mantoloking Beach in Brick Township, Ocean County, NJ. Within 24 hours, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection—Bureau of Emergency Response had determined that Oil had impacted beaches from Monmouth Beach to Sea Girt in Monmouth County (approximately 15 miles), with the heaviest oiling centered around Bradley Beach, Monmouth County; minor oil impacts had occurred at South Mantoloking Beach in Ocean County; and oiled birds had been observed from Sea Bright in Monmouth County south to Island Beach State Park in Ocean County (approximately 40 miles). The U.S. Coast Guard determined that an “incident” as defined by the Oil Pollution Act

(OPA)of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701 *et seq.* ) had occurred and that the incident did not fall within the exclusionary conditions set forth in 33 U.S.C 2702(c). Since a responsible party has not been identified, the incident was federalized and assigned Federal Project Number P04006. The total quantity of the oil discharged was estimated at no more than 1,000 gallons. Immediately following notification of the incident, the Service initiated pre-assessment data collection activities, pursuant to OPA, to make an initial determination as to whether natural resources or services were injured or were likely to be injured by the discharge. More than 160 migratory birds, or parts thereof, were recovered during the initial spill response; spill response and bird recovery activities were coordinated. Although most of the birds were recovered within the first week after notification of the incident, the Service continued to recover oiled birds throughout February 2004. Findings from the pre-assessment efforts demonstrated that exposure to the incident-related oil caused the deaths of 73 birds, representing at least 16 species. Those birds are Federal trust resources protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. 701 *et seq.* ). The injured resources and their supporting habitats are under the trusteeship of the DOI. Under OPA, State and Federal agencies and Indian tribes are designated to act as natural resource trustees, responsible for assessing natural resource losses and restoring those losses to baseline conditions, *i.e.* , the condition that would have existed had the incident not occurred. The Trustee for the Bradley Beach incident is the DOI, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Trustee is designated pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 2706(b), Executive Order 12777, and the National Contingency Plan, 40 CFR 300.600 and 300.605. In its role as the Natural Resource Trustee, the Service has made the following determinations required by 15 CFR 990.41(a): The Service, as Natural Resource Trustee, has jurisdiction to pursue restoration pursuant to OPA (33 U.S.C. 2702 and 2706(c)); 40 CFR Part 300, and the OPA Natural Resource Damage Assessments Regulations, 15 CFR part 990. The discharge of oil in the Bradley Beach area and its environs on or about February 3, 2004, was an incident as defined in 15 CFR 990.30. Natural resources under the trusteeship of the DOI have been injured as a result of the incident. The oil discharged contains components that may be harmful to aquatic organisms, birds, wildlife and vegetation. In addition, the U.S. Coast Guard has notified the Trustee that: The discharge was not permitted under Federal, State, or local law. The discharge was not from a public vessel. The discharge was not from an onshore facility subject to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authority Act of 1973 (43 U.S.C. 1651 *et seq.* ). Because the conditions of 15 CFR 990.41(a) were met, as described above, the Service made the further determination under 15 CFR 990.41(b) to proceed with pre-assessment. For the reasons discussed below, the Service, as Trustee, has made the determination required by 15 CFR 990.42(a) and is providing notice pursuant to 15 CFR 990.44 that it intends to conduct restoration planning in order to develop restoration alternatives that will restore, replace, rehabilitate, or acquire the equivalent of natural resources injured and/or natural resource services lost as a result of this incident. Although response actions were pursued, the nature of the discharge and the sensitivity of the environment precluded prevention of injuries to some natural resources, such as migratory birds and their supporting habitats. The Service believes that injured natural resources could return to baseline through natural or enhanced recovery, but interim losses have occurred and will continue to occur until a return to baseline is achieved. There are a number of injury assessment methods available to the Trustee to evaluate the injuries and define the appropriate type and scale of restoration for the injured natural resources and services. These include, but are not limited to, literature reviews, field studies, laboratory studies, and modeling studies. These methods may be used alone or in combination. In order to scale restoration actions, the Service intends to prepare an injury assessment that integrates the degree and spatial and temporal extent of injury to estimate the total quantity of injury. Feasible direct and compensatory restoration actions exist to address injuries from this incident. Restoration actions that could be considered include, but are not limited to, restoration, enhancement, and/or acquisition of nesting or wintering habitat of the injured species. Pursuant to 15 CFR 990.44(c), the Trustee will seek public involvement in restoration planning for this incident through public review of and comments on the draft restoration plan. *Author:* The primary author of this notice is Clay Stern. Authority: The authority for this action is the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701 *et seq.* ) and implementing Natural Resource Damage Assessments Regulations found at 15 CFR part 990. Dated: October 24, 2006. Richard O. Bennett, Acting Regional Director, Region 5, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, DOI Authorized Official, U.S. Department of the Interior. [FR Doc. E6-22290 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [CO-140-1430-ES; COC-63586, COC-40272] Notice of Realty Action; Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act Classification; Colorado AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)has examined and found suitable for classification for conveyance under the provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act, 25 acres of public land in Eagle County, Colorado. The Eagle River Water and Sanitation District proposes to use the land for a biosolids treatment and storage facility. DATES: Comments should be received by February 12, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to the BLM, Grand Junction Field Office, 2815 H Road, Grand Junction, Colorado, ATTN: Alan Kraus. Detailed information concerning this action, including appropriate environmental documentation, is available for review at the above address or at the BLM Glenwood Springs Field Office, 50629 Highway 6 and 24, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Kraus at the above address or by telephone at

(970)244-3078. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In response to an application from the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (ERWSD), Colorado, the following public lands have been examined and found suitable for classification for conveyance under the provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 869 *et seq.* and 43 CFR Subpart 2743). The lands are currently used by the ERSWD under the terms of Bureau of Land Management Right-of-Way COC-40272 and would continue to be used to treat and store municipal wastewater treatment plant sludges. Additional adjacent land would also be used for this purpose. Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado T 4 S., R 83 W., sec. 11; E 1/2 NE 1/4 SE 1/4 NW 1/4 , and N 1/2 SW 1/4 NE 1/4 . The area described contains 25 acres, more or less, in Eagle County. The lands are not needed for Federal purposes. Conveyance is consistent with current Bureau land-use planning and would be in the public interest. The patent, if issued, will be subject to the following reservations, terms, and conditions:

(1)Provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act and all applicable regulations of the Secretary of the Interior.

(2)The patentee shall comply with all Federal and State laws applicable to the disposal, placement, or release of hazardous substances (hazardous substance as defined in 40 CFR Part 302.)

(3)A right-of-way thereon for ditches and canals constructed by authority of the United States, pursuant to the Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945).

(4)Those rights for electric transmission line purposes granted by right-of-way COC-31358.

(5)Those rights for telephone line purposes granted by right-of-way COC-50820.

(6)Any other valid and existing rights of record.

(7)Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, its successors or assigns, shall defend, indemnify, and save harmless the United States and its officers, agents, representatives, and employees (hereinafter referred to in this clause as the United States) from all claims, loss, damage, actions, causes of action, expense, and liability (hereinafter referred to in this clause as claims) resulting from, brought for, or on account of, any personal injury, threat of personal injury, or property damage received or sustained by any person or persons (including the patentee's employees) or property growing out of, occurring, or attributable directly or indirectly, to the disposal of solid waste on, or the release of hazardous substances from: Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, Sec.11: E 1/2 NE 1/4 SE 1/4 NW 1/4 , N 1/2 SW 1/4 NE 1/4 , regardless of whether such claims shall be attributable to:

(1)The concurrent, contributory, or partial fault, failure, or negligence of the United States, or

(2)the sole fault, failure, or negligence of the United States. In the event of payment, loss, or expense under this agreement, the patentee shall be subrogated to the extent of the amount of such payment to all rights, powers, privileges, and remedies of the United States against any person regarding such payment, loss, or expense.

(8)Such other provisions as may be required by law. Upon publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** , the lands will be segregated from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including the general mining laws, except for conveyance under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. The segregative effect shall terminate upon issuance of a patent or upon publication in the **Federal Register** of an opening order, whichever occurs first. *Classification Comments:* Interested parties may submit comments involving the suitability of the land to treat and store municipal wastewater treatment plant sludge. Comments on the classification are restricted to whether the land is physically suited for the proposed use, whether the use will maximize the future use or uses of the land, whether the use is consistent with local planning and zoning, or whether the use is consistent with State and Federal programs. *Application Comments:* Interested parties may submit comments regarding the specific use proposed in the application and plan of development, whether the BLM followed proper administrative procedures in reaching the decision, or any other factor not directly related to the suitability of the land for the proposed use. All submissions from organizations or businesses will be made available for public inspection in their entirety. Individuals may request confidentiality with respect to their name, address, and phone number. If you wish to have your name or street address withheld from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, the first line of the comment should start with the words “CONFIDENTIALITY REQUEST” in uppercase letters in order for BLM to comply with your request. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by law. Comment contents will not be kept confidential. Any objections will be evaluated by the State Director, who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action. In the absence of any adverse comments, this realty action will become the final determination of the Department of the Interior. Comments must be received by February 12, 2007. In the absence of any adverse comments, the classification will become effective February 27, 2007. (Authority: 43 CFR part 2741.5) Steve Bennett, Associate Field Manager, Glenwood Springs Field Office. [FR Doc. E6-22331 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [AK-040-07-1610-DP] Notice of Extension of the Public Comment Period for the Bay Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Extension of the Public Comment Period for the Bay Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)announces an extension of the public comment period on the Bay Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (RMP/EIS). The original notice, issued September 29, 2006, provided for a comment period to end on January 5, 2007. The BLM is extending the comment period until February 5, 2007. DATES: Written comments on issues relating to the future land use, planning, and management of the Bay planning area must be submitted or postmarked no later than February 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments on the document should be addressed to Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage Field Office, ATTN: Bay RMP, 6881 Abbott Loop Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99507. Comments can also be submitted to the e-mail box developed for this project at *akbayrmp@blm.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ruth McCoard,

(800)478-1263, or by mail at the Anchorage Field Office, 6881 Abbott Loop Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99507. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The original Notice of Availability was published September 29, 2006, and provided for comments on the Bay Draft RMP/EIS to be received through January 5, 2007. Due to unforeseen circumstances, one of the key villages within the Bay planning area asked the BLM to reschedule an open house meeting/subsistence hearing to January 2007. To honor this request and other separate requests for a comment extension, the BLM has decided to extend the comment period by 31 days. Therefore, comments on the Bay Draft RMP/EIS will now be accepted through February 5, 2007. Dated: December 14, 2006. Julia Dougan, Acting State Director. [FR Doc. E6-22326 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service 30-Day Federal Register Notice of Submission of Network to Freedom Application Package to Office of Management and Budget; Opportunity for Public Comment AGENCY: Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Program. ACTION: Notice of submission to OMB and request for comments. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3507) and 5 CFR part 1320, Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, the National Park Service

(NPS)invites comments on a submitted request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)to approve an extension of a currently approved information collection clearance (OMB #1024-0232). DATES: Public Comments on the information collection will be accepted on or before January 29, 2007. The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection but may respond after 30 days. Therefore to ensure maximum consideration, OMB should receive comments by 30 days from the date of publication in the **Federal Register.** ADDRESSES: You may submit comments directly to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior (OMB #0124-0232), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, by fax at 202-395-6566 or by electronic mail at *oira_docket@omb.eop.gov* please mail or hand carry a copy of your comments to Diane Miller, National Coordinator, National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Program, National Park Service, Midwest Regional Office, 601 Riverfront Drive, Omaha, Nebraska, 68102. If you wish to send a copy of your comments by electronic mail, you may send them to *diane_miller@nps.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR A COPY OF THE PACKAGE SUBMITTED FOR OMB REVIEW, CONTACT: Diane Miller, 402-661-1588 ( *diane_miller@nps.gov* ) or James Hill, 402-661-1590 ( *james_hill@nps.gov* ) at National Park Service, Midwest Regional Office, 601 Riverfront Drive, Omaha, Nebraska 68102. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Law 105-203 authorizes the NPS to develop and administer the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom (Network), a nationwide collection of governmental and nongovernmental sites, facilities, and programs associated with the historic Underground Railroad movement. The NPS has developed the application process through which associated elements can be included in the Network The information collected will:

(a)Verify associations to the Underground Railroad,

(b)Measure minimum levels of standards for inclusion in the Network, and

(c)Identify general needs for technical assistance. The purpose of the information collection is to evaluate sites, facilities, and programs that are applying for inclusion in the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom. The information is used by the NPS to determine if candidates seeking inclusion in the Network meet the minimum criteria. *Title:* NPS National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Application. *Bureau Form Number:* n/a. *OMB Number:* 1024-0232. *Expiration Date:* 12/31/2006. *Type of request:* Extension of a currently approved information collection. *Description of need:* The NPS has identified guidelines and criteria for associated elements to qualify for the Network. The application form documents sizes, programs, and facilities and demonstrates that they meet the criteria established for inclusion. The documentation will be incorporated into a database that will be available to the general public for information purposes. The proposed information to be collected regarding these sites, facilities, and programs is not available from existing records, sources, or observations. *Automated data collection:* Respondents must verify associations and characteristics through descriptive texts that are the results of historical research. Evaluations are based on subjective analysis of the information provided, which often includes copies of rare documents and photographs. Much of the information is submitted in electronic format, but at the present time, it is not practicable to gather all of the required information electronically. *Descriptive of respondents:* The affected publics are State, tribal, and local governments, Federal agencies, businesses, non-profit organizations, and individuals throughout the United States. Nominations to the Network are voluntary. *Estimated average annual number of respondents:* 70. *Estimated average annual number of responses:* 70. *Estimated average burden hours per response:* 15. *Estimated frequency of response:* once per respondent. *Estimated annual reporting burden:* 1050 hours. There were no public comments received as a result of publishing in the **Federal Register** a 60-day notice [published October 12, 2006 (71 FR 60180)] of intention to renew clearance of this information collection. Comments from seven respondents were collected from a small sample of present and potential applicants to the program. Three comments regarded making downloading the form from our Web site earlier. With applicants, we address this problem by sending the form electronically. upon request. One comment regarded the complexity of requirements and instructions; we address this issue by electronically sending a sample or samples of successful applications to potential applicants when they inform use of their intent to apply. The comments from the public outreach did not affect our estimate of the public burden. The public now has a second opportunity to comment. Comments are invited on

(1)The need for the information including whether the information has practical utility;

(2)the accuracy of this reporting burden estimate;

(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques of other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record. Doris Lowery, NPS Information Collection Clearance Officer, Washington Administrative Program Center. [FR Doc. 06-9946 Filed 12-27-06; 11:52 am]

Connectionstraces to 13

Traces to 13 documents

U.S. Code