28006 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2011 / Notices 

NOA in the Federal Register by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

ADDRESSES: Questions or comments 

regarding the DEIS should be forwarded 

to Ms. Monica Manganaro, Fort Benning 

Public Affairs Office, 6460 Way Avenue, 

Building 2838, Fort Benning, GA 31905, 

or e-mailed to 

land.benning@us.army.mil. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Training Land Expansion Program 

hotline at (706) 545–8830 from 9 a.m. to 

4 p.m. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Fort 

Benning, comprised of approximately 

182,000 contiguous acres, is located in 

west-central GA and east-central AL. 

Fort Benning, home to the Maneuver 

Center of Excellence, is the Army’s 

premier basic training installation, 

training all Infantry, Armor, and Cavalry 

Soldiers in basic and advanced combat 

skills, as well as Airborne Soldiers and 

Rangers. Fort Benning also has the 

mission to study, test, and develop 

future Infantry and Armor doctrine, 

weapon systems, ground combat 

vehicles, robotics, tactics, techniques, 

and procedures. In addition, Fort 

Benning supports the training of 

deployable units stationed at Fort 

Benning from the U.S. Army Forces 

Command and U.S. Army Special 

Operations Command. 

The Army has determined Fort 

Benning has a doctrinal training land 

shortfall of 228,836 acres for heavy 

maneuver training. The shortfall means 

units must train in a degraded, less than 

optimal manner, resulting in less 

effective training than would be 

possible with additional maneuver land. 

Using a combination of land 

management practices and coordinated 

range scheduling, as well as the Army 

Compatible Use Buffer Program, Fort 

Benning has determined it can achieve 

sufficient training benefit by acquiring 

approximately 82,800 acres of 

additional training land. Land 

acquisition would facilitate Fort 

Benning’s compliance with a Jeopardy 

Biological Opinion issued by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service related to the 

red-cockaded woodpecker, which 

requires that the field training portion of 

the Army Reconnaissance Course move 

off the current installation. The 

additional lands would also help to 

alleviate scheduling conflicts and 

training degradation which occur within 

existing Fort Benning training lands. 

The Fort Benning Training Land 

Expansion DEIS analyzes the potential 

environmental impacts of six 

alternatives. The six alternatives include 

the No Action Alternative, under which 

the Army would not acquire additional 

training land, and five acquisition 

alternatives, each of which would 

involve the acquisition and use of 

approximately 82,800 acres of land. The 

five acquisition alternatives are: 

(1) Alternative 1—Acquisition of 

lands southeast and south of Fort 

Benning within Marion, Webster and 

Stewart counties, GA; 

(2) Alternative 2—Acquisition of 

lands to the west of Fort Benning within 

Russell County, AL; 

(3) Alternative 3 (Preferred 

Alternative)—Acquisition of lands to 

the south of Fort Benning within 

Stewart County, GA; 

(4) Alternative 4—Acquisition of 

lands to the south of Fort Benning in 

Stewart County, GA, and lands to the 

west of Fort Benning in Russell County, 

AL; and 

(5) Alternative 5—Acquisition of 

lands to the south of Fort Benning in 

Stewart County, GA, and lands to the 

north of Fort Benning in Harris and 

Talbot counties, GA. 

The Army has determined that as a 

result of the Proposed Action overall 

significant impacts could occur 

involving land use (Alternatives 1, 2, 

and 3), noise, socioeconomics, and 

traffic and transportation. The Army 

also anticipates moderate impacts could 

occur involving land use (Alternatives 4 

and 5), airspace, air quality, soils 

(Alternatives 2 through 5), surface water 

resources (Alternatives 2 through 5), 

and wetlands (Alternative 1); minor 

impacts could occur involving soils 

(Alternative 1), surface water resources 

(Alternative 1), wetlands (Alternatives 2 

through 5), utilities, hazardous and 

toxic substances and waste, and safety; 

and that overall beneficial impacts 

could occur involving biological 

resources and cultural resources. The 

DEIS also identifies practicable 

mitigation for adverse environmental 

impacts. 

This DEIS also serves as 

documentation for consultation and 

public involvement for the Installation’s 

compliance with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act for 

this action. Fort Benning uses the Army 

Alternative Procedures as outlined in 

the Installation’s Integrated Cultural 

Resource Management Plan. 

All government agencies, special 

interest groups and individuals are 

invited to attend public meetings and/ 

or submit their comments in writing. 

Information on the time and location of 

the public meetings will be published in 

local news media. 

The DEIS is available for public 

review at local libraries and at http:// 

www.benning.army.mil/garrison/tlep/. 

Brenda S. Bowen, 

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2011–11345 Filed 5–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3710–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army, Corps of 

Engineers 

Proposed Authorization Under the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide 

Permit Program of U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, Categorical 

Exclusions 

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of intent and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers is proposing to authorize 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) approved categorical exclusions 

for recurring conservation, restoration, 

and survey related activities under 

Nationwide Permit 23 (NWP 23). The 

Corps is requesting comment on the 

appropriateness of including these 

NRCS categorical exclusions under 

nationwide permit authorization and 

any conditions or restrictions that 

should be added so that those 

categorically excluded activities can be 

verified by NWP 23 to permit discharges 

of dredged or fill material and/or 

structures or work in waters of the 

United States. These NRCS categorically 

excluded activities have been approved 

by Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) and have been finalized by the 

NRCS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before July 12, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number COE– 

2011–0008, by any of the following 

methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

E-mail: 

karen.mulligan@usace.army.mil Include 

the docket number, COE–2011–0008, in 

the subject line of the message. 

Mail: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Attn: CECW–CO–R (Karen Mulligan), 

441 G Street NW., Washington, DC 

20314–1000. 

Hand Delivery/Courier: Due to 

security requirements, we cannot 

receive comments by hand delivery or 

courier. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2011 / Notices 28007 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

docket number COE–2011–0008. All 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available on-line at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the commenter indicates that the 

comment includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI, or otherwise 

protected, through regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov Web site is an 

anonymous access system, which means 

we will not know your identity or 

contact information unless you provide 

it in the body of your comment. If you 

send an e-mail directly to the Corps 

without going through regulations.gov, 

your e-mail address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, we recommend that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If we cannot read your 

comment because of technical 

difficulties and cannot contact you for 

clarification, we may not be able to 

consider your comment. Electronic 

comments should avoid the use of any 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed. Although listed in 

the index, some information is not 

publicly available, such as CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karen Mulligan, Headquarters, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, Operations 

and Regulatory Community of Practice, 

Washington, DC 20314–1000, by phone 

at 202–761–4664 or by e-mail at 

karen.mulligan@usace.army.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Corps 

of Engineers issued NWP 23 to 

authorize certain activities conducted 

by other Federal agencies where the 

other Federal agency or department has 

determined, pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), that 

the activity is categorically excluded 

from environmental documentation 

because it is included within a category 

of actions that have no more than 

minimal adverse environmental effects 

either individually or cumulatively. 

NWP 23 is intended to reduce 

duplicative Federal processes when 

another agency has completed 

requirements pursuant to NEPA, and to 

expedite Department of the Army 

authorizations for those activities that 

involve a discharge of dredged or fill 

material and/or structures or work in 

waters of the United States that have no 

more than minimal adverse 

environmental effects on the aquatic 

environment. 

The terms and conditions of NWP 23 

describe the general process followed by 

the Corps to approve categorically 

excluded activities for use with NWP 

23. To have their categorical exclusions 

(CEs) approved for use with NWP 23, 

agencies must submit an application to 

the Office of the Chief of Engineers. 

Before approving the use of those CEs 

with NWP 23, the Corps will solicit 

public comment. The Corps may add 

additional conditions, including preconstruction notification or reporting 

requirements, to ensure that 

categorically excluded activities covered 

under NWP 23 result in no more than 

minimal individual and cumulative 

adverse environmental effects on the 

aquatic environment. 

To date, the Corps has approved the 

CEs of three federal agencies for 

inclusion under NWP 23. CEs have been 

approved for the Bureau of Reclamation, 

Federal Highway Administration, and 

United States Coast Guard. Regulatory 

Guidance Letter 05–07, which was 

issued on December 8, 2005, provides 

the current list of approved CEs. This 

RGL is available on the Corps 

Headquarters Web site at: http:// 

www.usace.army.mil/CECW/ 

Documents/cecwo/reg/rgls/rgl05–07.pdf. 

The current NWP 23 was issued on 

March 12, 2007 (see 72 FR 11092), and 

expires on March 18, 2012. In the 

February 16, 2011, issue of the Federal 

Register (76 FR 9174), we proposed to 

reissue NWP 23 without any changes. 

The process for approving CEs for use 

with NWP 23 is independent of the 

rulemaking process for reissuing or 

modifying NWP 23. If the Corps 

approves any additional agency CEs for 

use with NWP 23, a new Regulatory 

Guidance Letter will be issued but the 

NWP itself will not be affected. 

The NRCS has requested Corps 

approval of 26 categorically excluded 

activities for inclusion in verification 

under NWP 23. The NRCS has 

previously adopted these categorically 

excluded activities pursuant to the CEQ 

Regulation for Implementing NEPA (40 

CFR part 1500 et seq.). The list of NRCS 

categorically excluded activities was 

approved by the CEQ and has been 

finalized by the NRCS. Five of the CEs 

have been established by the NRCS 

under 7 CFR 650.6 (a)(1–5) and 21 of the 

CEs have been established under 7 CFR 

650.6(d)(1–21). 

The Corps review process for the 

NRCS request to include its 26 

categorically excluded activities under 

NWP 23 starts with today’s publication 

of notice of intent and 60-day comment 

period. After the comment period has 

ended, the Corps will evaluate the 

comments received in response to this 

notice. If the Corps approves any or all 

of these categorically excluded 

activities, Regulatory Guidance Letter 

05–07 will be rescinded and replaced 

with a new Regulatory Guidance Letter 

that provides a list and description of all 

categorically excluded activities that are 

authorized under NWP 23. 

Proposal 

We are proposing to condition these 

NRCS categorically excluded activities 

to require reporting to Corps district 

offices. NRCS activities that are 

categorically excluded under NEPA that 

involve a discharge of dredged or fill 

material in a water of the United States 

and that require Department of the 

Army authorization under Section 404 

of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 

10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 

1899, must be reported to the 

appropriate district engineer, at least 30 

days prior to commencing activities. 

The report submitted to the district 

engineer would be required to contain 

the following information: (1) The sitespecific environmental evaluation 

(NRCS–CPA–52) approved by NRCS 

staff for the project; (2) a vicinity map 

showing the location of the proposed 

activity; and (3) project plans. A blank 

copy of NRCS’s environmental 

evaluation worksheet is provided in the 

regulations.gov docket for this action, so 

that interested parties can see what 

information will be provided in 

completed copies of worksheet NRCS– 

CPA–52. 

The district engineer will have 30 

days from the date of receipt of the 

report to notify the project proponent if 

he or she has determined that the 

proposed activity does not qualify for 

NWP 23 authorization. In response to a 

project-specific report, the district 

engineer may require compensatory 

mitigation to ensure that the activity 

results in minimal individual and 

cumulative adverse environmental 

effects on the aquatic environment. In 

such cases, the district engineer will 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

28008 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2011 / Notices 

send a NWP verification letter to the 

project proponent, which will include 

special conditions concerning 

compensatory mitigation requirements. 

If the district engineer believes that 

specific concerns for the aquatic 

environment or other public interest 

factors warrant further review, 

discretionary authority may be 

exercised on a case-by-case basis to 

require an individual permit. 

If the district engineer does not 

respond to the submitted report within 

30 days of receipt, then the project 

proponent can proceed under the NWP 

23 authorization as long as he or she has 

obtained Clean Water Act Section 401 

water quality certification and/or a 

Coastal Zone Management Act 

consistency concurrence, if required. 

The site-specific environmental 

evaluation prepared by NRCS will 

address compliance with the 

Endangered Species Act and Section 

106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. If the proposed 

activity may affect endangered or 

threatened species or will destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat, NRCS 

will be the lead Federal agency 

responsible for Endangered Species Act 

Section 7 consultation. If the proposed 

activity has the potential to cause effects 

to historic properties, NRCS will be the 

lead Federal agency responsible for 

consultation under Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act. 

Please note that several of the NRCS 

categorically excluded activities may 

not require Department of the Army 

authorization but are listed for 

consistency and to reduce confusion 

when referencing the CE numbers. 

Approval of the NRCS CEs for inclusion 

under NWP 23 provides further 

clarification to Corps and NRCS staff 

and a consistent mechanism to 

authorize these categorically excluded 

activities. 

Administrative Requirements 

Plain Language 

In compliance with the principles in 

the President’s Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, (63 FR 31855), regarding plain 

language, this preamble is written using 

plain language. The use of ‘‘we’’ in this 

notice refers to the Corps. We have also 

used the active voice, short sentences, 

and common everyday terms except for 

necessary technical terms. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The proposed action will not 

substantially change paperwork burdens 

on the regulated public because many of 

the 26 categorically excluded activities 

may also be authorized by other 

nationwide permits, regional general 

permits, or individual permits that have 

similar paperwork requirements. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control number. For the Corps 

Regulatory Program under Section 10 of 

the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and 

Section 103 of the Marine Protection, 

Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, 

the current OMB approval number for 

information collection requirements is 

maintained by the Corps of Engineers 

(OMB approval number 0710–0003, 

which expires on August 31, 2012). 

Executive Order 12866 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), we determined 

that this is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore it is not subject to 

review under requirements of the 

Executive Order. 

Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires the Corps to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ The proposed action does 

not have federalism implications. We do 

not believe that the proposed action will 

have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

Federal government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. The proposed 

action will not impose any additional 

substantive obligations on State or local 

governments. Therefore, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this 

proposed action. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq. 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice-and-comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of the proposed authorization on small 

entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) 

A small business based on Small 

Business Administration size standards; 

(2) a small governmental jurisdiction 

that is a government of a city, county, 

town, school district, or special district 

with a population of less than 50,000; or 

(3) a small organization that is any notfor-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of the proposed action on small 

entities, I certify that it will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, 

the agencies generally must prepare a 

written statement, including a costbenefit analysis, for proposed and final 

rules with ‘‘federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures to State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or to the private sector, of $100 million 

or more in any one year. Before 

promulgating a rule for which a written 

statement is needed, Section 205 of the 

UMRA generally requires the agencies 

to identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 do not apply when they are 

inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 allows an 

agency to adopt an alternative other 

than the least costly, most cost-effective, 

or least burdensome alternative if the 

agency publishes with the final rule an 

explanation of why that alternative was 

not adopted. Before an agency 

establishes any regulatory requirements 

that may significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments, including tribal 

governments, it must have developed, 

under Section 203 of the UMRA, a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of regulatory proposals 

with significant federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2011 / Notices 28009 

We have determined that the 

proposed action does not contain a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for State, local, and Tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or the private sector in 

any one year, because the approval of 

these CEs for use with NWP 23 provides 

a less costly, more cost-effective, and 

less burdensome means of obtaining 

Department of the Army authorization 

for certain activities than obtaining an 

individual permit. Therefore, this 

proposal is not subject to the 

requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of 

the UMRA. For the same reasons, we 

have determined that the proposed 

action contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

Therefore, the proposed action is not 

subject to the requirements of Section 

203 of UMRA. 

Executive Order 13045 

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

we have reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

we must evaluate the environmental 

health or safety effects of the proposed 

rule on children, and explain why the 

regulation is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives. 

The proposed approval of these CEs 

for use with NWP 23 is not subject to 

this Executive Order because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866. In addition, this 

proposed action does not concern an 

environmental or safety risk that we 

have reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. 

Executive Order 13175 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 6, 2000), requires 

agencies to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by tribal officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have tribal implications.’’ The phrase 

‘‘policies that have tribal implications’’ 

is defined in the Executive Order to 

include regulations that have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

the Indian tribes, or on the distribution 

of power and responsibilities between 

the Federal government and Indian 

tribes.’’ The proposed action does not 

have tribal implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

the Indian tribes, or on the distribution 

of power and responsibilities between 

the Federal government and Indian 

tribes. 

Therefore, Executive Order 13175 

does not apply to this proposal. 

However, in the spirit of Executive 

Order 13175, we specifically request 

comment from tribal officials on the 

proposed approval of these CEs for use 

with NWP 23. 

Environmental Documentation 

A decision document will be prepared 

for this action after the comment period 

has ended and all comments received 

have been evaluated. That decision 

document will be available in the 

regulations.gov docket for this action 

and through Headquarters, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Operations and 

Regulatory Community of Practice, 441 

G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20314– 

1000. 

The NRCS has adopted their CEs 

pursuant to the CEQ Regulation for 

Implementing the Procedural Provisions 

of NEPA (40 CFR part 1500 et seq.). The 

list of NRCS’s CEs has been approved by 

the CEQ and was finalized by the NRCS. 

Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. We will submit a 

report containing the final decision 

concerning this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. The proposed 

authorization is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Executive Order 12898 

Executive Order 12898 requires that, 

to the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, each Federal agency 

must make achieving environmental 

justice part of its mission. Executive 

Order 12898 provides that each federal 

agency conduct its programs, policies, 

and activities that substantially affect 

human health or the environment in a 

manner that ensures that such programs, 

policies, and activities do not have the 

effect of excluding persons (including 

populations) from participation in, 

denying persons (including 

populations) the benefits of, or 

subjecting persons (including 

populations) to discrimination under 

such programs, policies, and activities 

because of their race, color, or national 

origin. 

The proposed authorization is not 

expected to negatively impact human 

health or the environment of any 

community, and therefore is not 

expected to cause any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental impacts 

to minority or low-income communities. 

The purpose of the authorization is to 

reducing duplicative Federal processes 

when another Federal agency has 

completed the NEPA analysis for an 

activity, and to expedite Department of 

the Army authorization for projects 

having no more than minimal adverse 

environmental affects either 

individually or cumulatively. 

Executive Order 13211 

The proposed approval of NRCS CEs 

under NWP 23 is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy. 

Authority 

We are proposing to approve NRCS 

CEs for use with NWP 23, which was 

issued under the authority of Section 

404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 

1344) and Section 10 of the Rivers and 

Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et 

seq.) 

List of NRCS Categorical Exclusions 

NRCS Categorical Exclusions 

established under 7 CFR 650.6(a)(1–5): 

(1) Soil Survey—7 CFR part 611. 

(2) Snow Survey and Water Supply 

Forecasts—7 CFR part 612. 

(3) Plant Materials for Conservation— 

7 CFR part 613. 

(4) Inventory and Monitoring— 

Catalog of Federal Assistance 10.980 

(5) River Basin Studies under Section 

6 of Public Law 83–566 as amended— 

7 CFR part 621. 

NRCS Categorical Exclusions 

established under 7 CFR 650.6(d)(1–21): 

(1) Planting appropriate herbaceous 

and woody vegetation, which does not 

include noxious weeds or invasive 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

28010 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2011 / Notices 

plants, on disturbed sites to restore and 

maintain the sites ecological functions 

and services. 

(2) Removing dikes and associated 

appurtenances (such as culverts, pipes, 

valves, gates, and fencing) to allow 

waters to access floodplains to the 

extent that existed prior to the 

installation of such dikes and associated 

appurtenances. 

(3) Plugging and filling excavated 

drainage ditches to allow hydrologic 

conditions to return to pre-drainage 

conditions to the extent practicable. 

(4) Replacing and repairing existing 

culverts, grade stabilization, and water 

control structures and other small 

structures that were damaged by natural 

disasters where there is no new depth 

required and only minimal dredging, 

excavation, or placement of fill is 

required. 

(5) Restoring the natural topographic 

features of agricultural fields that were 

altered by farming and ranching 

activities for the purpose of restoring 

ecological processes. 

(6) Removing or relocating residential, 

commercial, and other public and 

private buildings and associated 

structures constructed in the 100-year 

floodplain or within the breach 

inundation area of an existing dam or 

other flood control structure in order to 

restore natural hydrologic conditions of 

inundation or saturation, vegetation, or 

reduce hazards posed to public safety. 

(7) Removing storm debris and 

sediment following a natural disaster 

where there is a continuing and eminent 

threat to public health or safety, 

property, and natural and cultural 

resources and removal is necessary to 

restore lands to pre-disaster conditions 

to the extent practicable. Excavation 

will not exceed the pre-disaster 

condition. 

(8) Stabilizing stream banks and 

associated structures to reduce erosion 

through bioengineering techniques 

following a natural disaster to restore 

pre-disaster conditions to the extent 

practicable, e.g., utilization of living and 

nonliving plant materials in 

combination with natural and synthetic 

support materials, such as rocks, riprap, geo-textiles, for slope stabilization, 

erosion reduction, and vegetative 

establishment and establishment of 

appropriate plant communities (bank 

shaping and planting, brush mattresses, 

log, root wad, and boulder stabilization 

methods). 

(9) Repairing or maintenance of 

existing small structures or 

improvements (including structures and 

improvements utilized to restore 

disturbed or altered wetland, riparian, 

in stream, or native habitat conditions). 

Examples of such activities include the 

repair or stabilization of existing stream 

crossings for livestock or human 

passage, levees, culverts, berms, dikes, 

and associated appurtenances. 

(10) Constructing small structures or 

improvements for the restoration of 

wetland, riparian, in stream, or native 

habitats. Examples of activities include: 

(1) Installation of fences, and (2) 

construction of small berms, dikes, and 

associated water control structures. 

(11) Restoring an ecosystem, fish and 

wildlife habitat, biotic community, or 

population of living resources to a 

determinable pre-impact condition. 

(12) Repairing or maintenance of 

existing constructed fish passageways, 

such as fish ladders, or spawning areas 

impacted by natural disasters or human 

alteration. 

(13) Repairing, maintaining, or 

installing fish screens to existing 

structures. 

(14) Repairing or maintaining 

principal spillways and appurtenances 

associated with existing serviceable 

dams, originally constructed to NRCS 

standards, in order to meet current 

safety standards. Work will be confined 

to the existing footprint of the dam, and 

no major change in reservoir or 

downstream operations will result. 

(15) Repairing or improving 

(deepening/widening/armoring) existing 

auxiliary/emergency spillways 

associated with dams, originally 

constructed to NRCS standards, in order 

to meet current safety standards. Work 

will be confined to the dam or abutment 

areas, and no major change in reservoir 

or downstream operation will result. 

(16) Repairing embankment slope 

failures on structures, originally built to 

NRCS standards, where the work is 

confined to the embankment or 

abutment areas. 

(17) Increasing the freeboard (which is 

the height from the auxiliary 

(emergency) spillway crest to the top of 

the embankment) of an existing dam or 

dike, originally built to NRCS standards, 

by raising the top elevation in order to 

meet current safety and performance 

standards. The purpose of the safety 

standard and associated work is to 

ensure that during extreme rainfall 

events, flows are confined to the 

auxiliary/emergency spillway so that 

the existing structure is not overtopped 

which may result in a catastrophic 

failure. Elevating the top of the dam will 

not result in an increase to lake or 

stream levels. Work will be confined to 

the existing dam and abutment areas, 

and no major change in reservoir 

operations will result. Examples of work 

may include the addition of fill 

material, such as earth or gravel, or 

placement of parapet walls. 

(18) Modifying existing residential, 

commercial, and other public and 

private buildings to prevent flood 

damages, such as elevating structures or 

sealing basements to comply with 

current State safety standards and 

Federal performance standards. 

(19) Undertaking minor agricultural 

practices to maintain and restore 

ecological conditions in floodplains 

after a natural disaster or on lands 

impacted by human alteration. 

Examples of these practices include: 

Mowing, haying, grazing, fencing, offstream watering facilities, and invasive 

species control which are undertaken 

when fish and wildlife are not breeding, 

nesting, rearing young, or during other 

sensitive timeframes. 

(20) Implementing soil control 

measures on existing agricultural lands, 

such as grade stabilization structures 

(pipe drops), sediment basins, terraces, 

grassed waterways, filter strips, riparian 

forest buffer, and critical area planting. 

(21) Implementing water conservation 

activities on existing agricultural lands, 

such as minor irrigation land leveling, 

irrigation water conveyance (pipelines), 

irrigation water control structures, and 

various management practices. 

Reporting Requirement 

The permittee must submit to the 

district engineer a copy of: (1) The sitespecific environmental evaluation 

(NRCS–CPA–52) approved by NRCS 

staff for the project; (2) a vicinity map 

showing the location of the proposed 

activity; and (3) project plans. These 

documents must be submitted to the 

district engineer at least 30 days prior to 

commencing activities in waters of the 

United States authorized by this NWP. 

Dated: May 6, 2011. 

Michael G. Ensch, 

Chief, Operations and Regulatory, Directorate 

of Civil Works. 

[FR Doc. 2011–11831 Filed 5–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3720–58–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Navy 

[Docket ID: USN–2011–0006] 

Privacy Act of 1974; System of 

Records 

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice to Alter a System of 

Records. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy 

proposes to alter a system of records in 

its inventory of record systems subject 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES