This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

62431

Vol. 69, No. 206

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC 

PRESERVATION 

Notice of Availability of the 

Environmental Assessment (EA) for 

the Program Comments Under 36 CFR 

800.14(e) Regarding Department of 

Defense Historic Properties 

Management

AGENCY: Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation.

ACTION: Notice of availability of 

Environmental Assessment (EA). 

SUMMARY: This announces the 

availability of the Department of 

Defense’s EA for the Program Comments 

under 36 CFR 800.14(e) Regarding 

Department of Defense Historic 

Properties Management. The Army, as 

the Service designated as lead for this 

action, intends to sign a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) unless 

public comments identify significant 

impacts or issues that have not been 

considered.

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

November 26, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the 

EA may be directed by mail to the US 

Army Environmental Center, ATTN: 

SFIM–AEC–PA (ATTN: Mr. Robert 

DiMichele) Aberdeen Proving Ground, 

MD 21010–5401, or by phone (410) 436–

2556. The DoD also solicits written 

comments on the EA. Such comments 

must be submitted by mail to the same 

address no later than the date 

mentioned above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Lee Foster, Cultural Resources Action 

Officer, Office of Director of 

Environmental Programs, at (703) 601–

1591.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (section 106), 16 U.S.C. 

470f, requires Federal agencies to take 

into account the effects of their 

undertakings on historic properties, and 

provide the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation (ACHP) a 

reasonable opportunity to comment on 

those undertakings. The regulations 

implementing Section 106 are found at 

36 CFR part 800.

The Department of Defense (DoD) has 

identified a programmatic approach to 

comply with the requirements of section 

106 for the treatment of historic 

properties including Cold War era 

Unaccompanied Personnel Housing 

(UPH), World War II and Cold War era 

Ammunition Storage Facilities, and 

World War II and Cold War era Army 

Ammunition Production Facilities and 

Plants. 

These approximately 45,000 buildings 

and structures are about 11% of the 

overall DoD inventory of 397,389 

buildings and structures. UPH 

encompasses all current and former DoD 

enlisted barracks, bachelor officer 

quarters, and transient quarters 

constructed during the period 

commencing in 1946 and ending in 

1974. Ammunition Storage Facilities 

comprises all DoD Ammunition bunkers 

and magazines constructed from 1939 

through 1974. The third category 

includes Army Ammunition Plants 

constructed from 1939 to 1974. 

The DoD engaged in a major 

construction program during these 

periods in order to address the shortage 

of housing, storage facilities, and 

production plants that developed out of 

World War II mobilization requirements 

and the increased size of the standing 

military during the Cold War era. A 

significant portion of these buildings 

and structures are nearing the age of 

fifty years old, triggering the need for 

the DoD to consider, in accordance with 

Section 106, these buildings and 

structures. 

In order to support the military 

mission, the DoD needs to develop a 

programmatic approach to Section 106 

compliance for each of these categories 

of property types. Management 

activities affecting these buildings and 

structures occur on a daily basis, 

including but not limited to ongoing 

operations, maintenance and repair, 

rehabilitation, renovation, mothballing, 

ceasing maintenance activities, new 

construction, demolition, 

deconstruction and salvage, and 

transfer, sale, lease and/or closure. 

These programs comments are meant 

to directly support improvement of 

quality of life, safety and advancements 

in technology that directly affect 

soldiers. The DoD is developing a 

Barracks Modernization Program to 

provide better quarters for 

unaccompanied personnel. As the 

military adopts new ammunition 

technologies to meet new environmental 

and war-fighting requirements, storage 

needs are likely to change, resulting in 

modifications to existing storage 

facilities or the need to re-use or excess 

those that cannot be adapted. To allow 

for advancement in production 

technology and to facilitate planned 

excessing actions as well as possible 

future Base Realignment and Closure 

activities in the most effective manner 

for a large number of properties, the 

Army is planning multiple actions at 

Army Ammunition Plants and 

Production Facilities.

Development of the EA was preceded 

by coordination with the ACHP. The EA 

gives full consideration of the request 

and implementation of Program 

Comments in accordance with 36 CFR 

800.14(e) as the proposed action, and 

two reasonable alternatives to the 

proposed action. 

The EA considered, evaluated and 

assessed alternatives: (i) The no action 

alternative (continued project-by-project 

review under 36 CFR Part 800); (ii) the 

Programmatic Agreement Alternative; 

and (iii) the proposed action alternative 

of requesting and implementing 

Program Comments in accordance with 

36 CFR 800.14(e). Consideration of the 

alternatives analyzed in the EA leads to 

the DoD’s decision to request and 

implement Program Comments. 

The no action alternative would allow 

a continued ad hoc approach to 

compliance with Section 106 and 

management of historic properties. With 

the anticipated growth in DoD’s historic 

properties inventory, continued review 

of undertakings on a case-by-case basis 

will likely remain inefficient and lead to 

increased program costs. This could 

have adverse impacts on the ability of 

the DoD to provide suitable housing for 

unaccompanied personnel, safe storage 

of ammunition, and improved and 

updated ammunition production 

facilities. 

The Programmatic Agreement (PA) 

Alternative better meets the stated 

purpose and need than the no action 

alternative since it would provide an 

installation-specific or regional 

62432 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2004 / Notices 

programmatic basis for Section 106 

compliance. PAs must be negotiated 

with appropriate stakeholders such as 

State and Tribal Historic Preservation 

Officers, Indian tribes, and other 

consulting parties. This approach, 

however, would involve lengthy and 

complex negotiations that have no 

specified time limits, and which might 

ultimately still require some case-bycase review. Also, after a PA goes into 

effect, it may be unilaterally terminated 

by any signatory, limiting the long-term 

effectiveness and consistency of such 

agreements. In addition, installationspecific or regional PAs would not 

address all DoD NHPA Section 106 

compliance responsibilities in a single 

agreement, and would not provide for 

an economy of scale in the treatment of 

agency-wide resources. Like the no 

action alternative, the PA alternative 

could result in adverse impacts to the 

DoD’s need to provide suitable housing 

for unaccompanied personnel, safely 

store ammunition, and improve and 

update ammunition production 

facilities.

The proposed action more squarely 

meets the stated purpose and need for 

action and provides the necessary 

balance between preservation and the 

need to expeditiously provide suitable 

housing for unaccompanied personnel, 

safely store ammunition, and improve 

and update ammunition production 

facilities. While the proposed action has 

the potential to adversely impact 

historic properties, those impacts are 

not likely to be significant. The DoD 

will ensure that effects on historic 

properties are considered and addressed 

up front through programmatic 

treatment. 

The Council on Environmental 

Quality regulations, at 40 CFR 1501.6, 

encourage Federal lead agencies to 

request that other Federal agencies with 

special expertise concerning a relevant 

environmental issue associated with a 

proposed action to participate as a 

cooperating agency in the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

process. The DoD recognizes that the 

ACHP has special expertise with respect 

to historic properties, and, in particular, 

on the review of Federal agency 

undertakings under Section 106 of the 

NHPA. The ACHP is responsible for 

reviewing, and, if appropriate, issuing 

program comments in accordance with 

36 CFR 800.14(e)(1)–(6). For these 

reasons, DoD has requested that the 

ACHP participate as a consulting party 

in the drafting, review and release of 

this EA. The ACHP has agreed to 

participate as a cooperating agency and, 

in that role, is publishing this notice of 

availability on behalf of the DoD. The 

ACHP’s agreement to publish this DoD 

notice of availability does not in any 

way signify any ACHP endorsement, or 

lack thereof, of the program comments 

or commitment to ultimately adopt or 

reject them. Such decisions will be 

made by the ACHP pursuant to the 

process under 36 CFR 800.14(e).

Authority: 40 CFR 1501.6

Dated: October 21, 2004. 

John M. Fowler, 

Executive Director (ACHP).

[FR Doc. 04–23952 Filed 10–25–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–10–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

[Docket No. 04–105–1] 

Melaleuca; Availability of an 

Environmental Assessment

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of availability and 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: We are advising the public 

that the Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service has prepared an 

environmental assessment relative to an 

application for a permit for the 

environmental release of the 

nonindigenous fly Fergusonina turneri

and its obligate nematode, Fergusobia 

quinquenerviae, potential biological 

control agents for Melaleuca 

quinquenervia. The environmental 

assessment documents our review and 

analysis of environmental impacts 

associated with, and alternatives to, 

issuing a permit for the environmental 

release of the fly and nematode in the 

continental United States. We are 

making this environmental assessment 

available to the public for review and 

comment.

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before November 

26, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Please send four copies of your 

comment (an original and three copies) 

to Docket No. 04–105–1, Regulatory 

Analysis and Development, PPD, 

APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River Road 

Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238. 

Please state that your comment refers to 

Docket No. 04–105–1. 

• E-mail: Address your comment to 

regulations@aphis.usda.gov. Your 

comment must be contained in the body 

of your message; do not send attached 

files. Please include your name and 

address in your message and ‘‘Docket 

No. 04–105–1’’ on the subject line. 

• Agency Web Site: Go to http://

www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/

cominst.html for a form you can use to 

submit an e-mail comment through the 

APHIS Web site. 

Reading Room: You may read any 

comments that we receive on the 

environmental assessment in our 

reading room. The reading room is 

located in room 1141 of the USDA 

South Building, 14th Street and 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC. Normal reading room 

hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except holidays. To be 

sure someone is there to help you, 

please call (202) 690–2817 before 

coming. 

Other Information: You may view 

APHIS documents published in the 

Federal Register and related 

information, including the names of 

groups and individuals who have 

commented on APHIS dockets, on the 

Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/

ppd/rad/webrepor.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Wayne Wehling, Biological and 

Technical Services, Pest Permit 

Evaluations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737–

1236; (301) 734–8757.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background 

The Australian broad-leaved 

paperbark tree, Melaleuca 

quinquenervia, commonly called 

melaleuca, has become a successful 

invasive weed in southern Florida 

because of its ability to produce large 

quantities of seed. Individual trees bear 

up to 100 million seeds. Massive, 

simultaneous seed release occurs after 

fire or when some other event causes 

drying of the seed capsules, but a steady 

seed rain occurs even without such an 

event. Densities of seedlings may be as 

high as 10 million seedlings/hectare 

(ha), and growth and development of 

the trees, along with simultaneous selfthinning produces mature stands of 10–

15,000 trees/ha. Individual trees can 

grow into localized stands. These stands 

merge with other stands to form 

expansive monocultures often covering 

hundreds of acres. Melaleuca has 

invaded more than a half-million acres 

in southern Florida and over $25 

million has been spent over the past 

decade to manage it, yet it continues to 

spread. 

Melaleuca was first imported to 

southern Florida as an ornamental tree