17134 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 64 / Monday, April 5, 2010 / Notices 

31314–4928. Written comments may be 

mailed to this address or e-mailed to 

Charles.Walden4@us.army.mil. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Dina McKain, Public Affairs Office, at 

(912) 435–9874 during normal business 

hours. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To meet 

the needs of the Soldiers at Fort Stewart, 

additional ranges and garrison support 

facilities are required. This DEIS 

examines the potential environmental 

and socioeconomic impacts of the 

construction and operation of 12 ranges 

and 2 garrison support facilities to be 

constructed over a 4-year time period. It 

also examines potential impacts to 

surrounding lands and/or local 

communities. 

The DEIS evaluates the following: A 

Multipurpose Machine Gun Range, an 

Infantry Platoon Battle Course, a Known 

Distance Range, two Modified Record 

Fire Ranges, a Qualification Training 

Range, an Infantry Squad Battle Course, 

a Fire and Movement Range, a Digital 

Multipurpose Training Range, a 25 

Meter Zero Range, a Combat Pistol 

Range, and a Convoy Live-Fire Course 

and associated engagement boxes. The 

Garrison Support Facilities are a Sky 

Warrior Unmanned Aerial System 

(UAS) facility and a 10th Engineering 

Battalion Complex, which would be 

constructed in the cantonment area. 

Three alternatives are considered: 

Alternative A—No Action, and two 

action alternatives (Alternatives B and 

C). The No Action Alternative is to 

continue the current mission and 

support activities already occurring at 

Fort Stewart. The action alternatives 

would greatly enhance Soldier training 

and overall unit readiness. Alternatives 

B and C offer different sitings for the 

ranges and garrison support facilities. 

Specified screening criteria were 

applied to each alternative to ascertain 

and rate the impact, from both an 

environmental and an operational 

perspective. Where possible, Alternative 

B sites tend to utilize footprints of 

existing ranges, limit the isolation of 

useful maneuver terrain, be located in 

relative close proximity to the 

cantonment area for operational tempo, 

and utilize the existing impact area 

without creating any new impact areas. 

Alternative C sites tend to locate ranges 

on new ground where there has not 

been a range in the past. Alternative C 

sites also have a greater impact on 

training, range operation, off-site noise, 

and environmental resources. Overall, 

Alternative B will not have as severe an 

environmental impact as Alternative C, 

although some individual sites may. 

After consideration of all anticipated 

operational and environmental impacts, 

Alternative B is the Army’s preferred 

alternative. 

Impacts are analyzed for a wide range 

of environmental resource areas 

including, but not limited to, air quality, 

noise, water resources, biological 

resources (to include protected species), 

cultural resources, socioeconomics, 

infrastructure (utilities and 

transportation), land use, solid and 

hazardous materials/waste, and 

cumulative environmental effects. No 

significant impacts are anticipated on 

any of these environmental resources. 

The Army invites the public to 

comment on the DEIS and to participate 

in public meetings which will be 

announced in local news media. The 

DEIS is available at local libraries 

surrounding Fort Stewart and the 

document may also be accessed at 

http://www.Fortstewart-mmp.eis.com. 

Comments from the public will be 

considered before any decision is made 

regarding implementing the proposed 

action at Fort Stewart. 

Dated: March 19, 2010. 

Addison D. Davis, IV, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army 

(Environment, Safety and Occupational 

Health). 

[FR Doc. 2010–7452 Filed 4–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3710–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army; Corps of 

Engineers 

Intent To Prepare a Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Broward County Shore Protection 

Project, North County Line to Hillsboro 

Inlet (Segment I) General Reevaluation 

Report, Located in Broward County, FL 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (Corps), Jacksonville District, 

intends to prepare a Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement 

(DSEIS) for the Broward County Shore 

Protection Project(Segment I) General 

Re-Evaluation Report. The project is 

being sponsored locally by the city of 

Deerfield Beach. 

ADDRESSES: U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Planning Division, 

Environmental Branch, P.O. Box 4970, 

Jacksonville, FL 32232–0019. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Pat Griffin, by email 

Patrick.M.Griffin@usace.army.mil or by 

telephone at (904) 232–2286. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

a. The city of Deerfield Beach has 

secured the appropriation of Federal 

funds from Congress in the FY 03 and 

FY 04 Energy and Water Resources 

Development Act appropriations, 

respectively, for the USACE to initiate 

the preparation of the General 

Reevaluation Report (GRR). Preparation 

of a GRR for Segment I was authorized 

by the Conference Report for FY 2003 

Appropriations (H.R. 108–10 pg. 808). 

The initial authorization for the overall 

project provided for construction by the 

local sponsor with reimbursement of the 

Federal share of eligible costs. This 

authorization was provided in House 

Document No. 91/89 dated February 18, 

1965, as described in the Chief’s Report 

dated June 15,1964. 

b. Objectives. As the local sponsor for 

this study, it is the city of Deerfield 

Beach’s expectation and desire that the 

USACE will in a cost effective manner 

conduct the GRR and the NEPA 

document for Segment I (north county 

line to Hillsboro Inlet), Broward County, 

FL and associated studies on behalf of 

the communities of Deerfield Beach and 

the Town of Hillsboro Beach and 

citizens of Broward County, FL. The city 

anticipates that the study will provide 

valuable economic, hurricane, storm 

and erosion data and related 

environmental and biological 

information regarding Deerfield’s 

beaches and those in Segment I. This 

information will assist the city in its ongoing efforts to provide a healthy and 

sustainable beach to residents and 

visitors. Additionally, the city expects 

the GRR and associated studies will 

provide in-depth analysis on the 

condition of the beaches within the 

study area and a determination as to 

whether or not the beaches within 

Segment I are eligible to receive Federal 

funding assistance for on-going and 

routine beach nourishment and to 

provide the recommended and 

appropriate levels and schedule 

necessary to conduct activities which 

will maintain a healthy beach profile. 

c. Alternatives. Alternatives will be 

developed during this scoping period. 

Information on the proposed 

alternatives will be included in future 

documents and will be available for 

review during public meetings and 

document comment periods. Ideas on 

potential alternatives are welcome and 

will be considered. 

d. Issues. The DEIS will consider the 

possible effects of placing compatible 

material on the beaches located within 

the boundaries of Segment I, impacts of 

dredging materials from an offshore 

borrow area, coral reefs and other 

hardbottom communities, as well as 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 64 / Monday, April 5, 2010 / Notices 17135 

other project related impacts on 

protected species, water quality, fish 

and wildlife resources, cultural 

resources, essential fish habitat, socioeconomic resources, coastal processes, 

aesthetics and recreation, cumulative 

impacts, and other impacts identified 

through scoping, public involvement, 

and agency coordination. 

e. Scoping Process. The scoping 

process as outlined by the Council on 

Environmental Quality would be 

utilized to involve Federal, State, and 

local agencies, and other interested 

persons and organizations. A scoping 

letter would be sent to the appropriate 

parties requesting comments and 

concerns regarding issues to consider 

during the study. Public scoping 

meetings would be held. Exact dates, 

times, and locations would be published 

in local papers. 

f. Coordination. The proposed action 

is being coordinated with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the 

National Marine Fisheries Service under 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act, with the FWS under the Fish and 

Wildlife Coordination Act, and with the 

State Historic Preservation Officer. 

g. Other Environmental Review and 

Consultation. The proposed action 

would involve evaluation for 

compliance with guidelines pursuant to 

section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act; 

application (to the State of Florida) for 

Water Quality Certification pursuant to 

section 401 of the Clean Water Act; 

certification of state lands, easements, 

and rights of way; Essential Fish Habitat 

with National Marine Fisheries Service; 

and determination of Coastal Zone 

Management Act consistency. 

h. Agency Role. The non-Federal 

sponsor (city of Deerfield Beach) will 

provide extensive information and 

assistance on the resources to be 

impacted, mitigation measures if 

warranted, and alternatives. 

i. DSEIS Preparation. It is estimated 

that the DEIS will be available to the 

public on or about May 2012. 

Dated: March 24, 2010. 

Eric P. Summa, 

Chief, Environmental Branch. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7599 Filed 4–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3720–58–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection Requests 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

SUMMARY: The Acting Director, 

Information Collection Clearance 

Division, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of 

Management, invites comments on the 

proposed information collection 

requests as required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before June 4, 

2010. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires 

that the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) provide interested 

Federal agencies and the public an early 

opportunity to comment on information 

collection requests. OMB may amend or 

waive the requirement for public 

consultation to the extent that public 

participation in the approval process 

would defeat the purpose of the 

information collection, violate State or 

Federal law, or substantially interfere 

with any agency’s ability to perform its 

statutory obligations. The Acting 

Director, Information Collection 

Clearance Division, Regulatory 

Information Management Services, 

Office of Management, publishes that 

notice containing proposed information 

collection requests prior to submission 

of these requests to OMB. Each 

proposed information collection, 

grouped by office, contains the 

following: (1) Type of review requested, 

e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or 

reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of 

the collection; (4) Description of the 

need for, and proposed use of, the 

information; (5) Respondents and 

frequency of collection; and (6) 

Reporting and/or Recordkeeping 

burden. OMB invites public comment. 

The Department of Education is 

especially interested in public comment 

addressing the following issues: (1) Is 

this collection necessary to the proper 

functions of the Department; (2) will 

this information be processed and used 

in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate 

of burden accurate; (4) how might the 

Department enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (5) how might the 

Department minimize the burden of this 

collection on the respondents, including 

through the use of information 

technology. 

Dated: March 30, 2010. 

Stephanie Valentine, 

Acting Director, Information Collection 

Clearance Division, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of Management. 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and 

Policy Development 

Type of Review: Revision. 

Title: Evaluation of the Teacher 

Incentive Fund (TIF) Program. 

Frequency: On Occasion. 

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal 

Gov’t, SEAs or LEAs 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour 

Burden: 

Responses: 2,841. 

Burden Hours: 2,044. 

Abstract: In 2006, the U.S. 

Department of Education launched the 

Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF), which 

awards competitive grants to develop 

and implement performance-based 

compensation systems in high-need 

schools. The purpose of the evaluation 

is to describe the implementation of the 

program and its relationship to any 

increases in recruitment and retention 

of effective teachers and principals. If 

feasible, this evaluation will also seek to 

analyze TIF’s relationship to increasing 

student achievement. 

This evaluation of the TIF program 

includes an implementation study of the 

Cohort 1 and 2 TIF grantees. The 

implementation study will describe the 

central features of the local TIF 

performance-pay programs, the 

implementation of the programs, and 

similarities and differences in 

performance pay programs. Data 

collection activities will be iterative, 

beginning with telephone interviews of 

key stakeholders in all the TIF sites 

(completed winter 2010), followed by 

two rounds of more in-depth case 

studies in a sample of sites. 

Representative surveys of principals and 

teachers will also be conducted to 

represent the full range of program 

knowledge and experiences in each 

grantee program. The implementation 

study may be used in conjunction with 

outcomes data (if the Department 

exercises optional outcomes tasks) to 

help explain the relationship between 

program characteristics and system 

supports and program outcomes.

Requests for copies of the proposed 

information collection request may be 

accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, 

by selecting the ‘‘Browse Pending 

Collections’’ link and by clicking on link 

number 4249. When you access the 

information collection, click on 

‘‘Download Attachments’’ to view. 

Written requests for information should 

be addressed to U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

LBJ, Washington, DC 20202–4537. 

Requests may also be electronically 

mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed 

to 202–401–0920. Please specify the 

complete title of the information 

collection when making your request. 

Comments regarding burden and/or 

the collection activity requirements 

should be electronically mailed to 

ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. Individuals who 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES