Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 2015 / Notices 4303 

Dated: January 21, 2015. 

Tina A. Campbell, 

Chief, Division of Policy and Directives 

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01341 Filed 1–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R7–R–2012–N207; 

FXRS1265070000S3–134–FF07R06000] 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska; 

Revised Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

availability of a revised comprehensive 

conservation plan (plan/CCP) and final 

environmental impact statement (EIS) 

for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 

(refuge, NWR) for a 30-day public 

review. In this revised plan and final 

EIS, we describe how we propose to 

manage the refuge for the next 15 years. 

DATES: The review period will end 

February 26, 2015. We are not soliciting 

comments on the plan during this 

review period. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit questions 

or requests for more information by any 

one of the following methods: 

• Email: ArcticRefugeCCP@fws.gov. 

Include ‘‘Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge Revised CCP and Final EIS’’ in 

the subject line of the message. 

• Fax: Attention: Arctic CCP, 

Planning Team Leader, Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge, (907) 456–0428. 

• U.S. Mail: Attention: Stephanie 

Brady, Arctic CCP, Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge, 101 12th Ave., Rm. 

236, Fairbanks, AK 99701. 

• In-Person Drop Off: You may drop 

off questions during regular business 

hours at the above addresses. 

You will find the plan and EIS, as 

well as information about the planning 

process and a summary of the revised 

plan, on the planning Web site: http:// 

arctic.fws.gov/ccp.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephanie Brady, (907) 306–7448. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

With this notice, we continue the 

comprehensive conservation planning 

process for Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge, which we began by publishing 

a notice of intent in the Federal Register 

(75 FR 17763) on April 7, 2010. For 

more about the initial process and the 

history of this refuge, see that notice. 

Background 

The Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA) requires us 

to develop a CCP for each national 

wildlife refuge in Alaska. The purpose 

of developing a CCP is to provide refuge 

managers with a strategy for achieving 

refuge purposes and contributing 

toward the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), 

consistent with sound principles of fish 

and wildlife management, conservation, 

legal mandates, and Service policies. In 

addition to outlining broad management 

direction for conserving wildlife and 

their habitats, CCPs identify wildlifedependent recreational opportunities 

available to the public, including 

opportunities for hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, 

and environmental education and 

interpretation. In general, we review 

and update CCPs in Alaska every 15 to 

20 years. 

ANILCA lists specific purposes for 

each refuge in Alaska. These purposes 

provide the foundation for developing 

and prioritizing the management goals 

and objectives for each Alaskan refuge. 

The planning process is a way for us 

and the public to evaluate management 

goals and objectives that will ensure the 

best possible approach to wildlife, 

plant, and habitat conservation while 

providing for wildlife-dependent 

recreation opportunities that are 

compatible with each refuge’s 

establishing purposes and the mission 

of the NWRS. 

Additional Information 

The revised plan may be found at 

http://arctic.fws.gov/ccp.htm. The 

document incorporates an EIS, prepared 

in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (43 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 

Alternatives Considered 

The revised plan and final EIS 

includes detailed information about the 

refuge, planning process, issues, and 

management alternatives considered. 

The final EIS includes discussions of six 

alternatives for refuge management. All 

six alternatives address three significant 

issues: Wilderness recommendations, 

Wild and Scenic River 

recommendations, and Kongakut River 

visitor use management. The Service’s 

preferred alternative is described in the 

revised Plan and final EIS. 

Alternative A: Current Management 

(No Action) 

This alternative reflects the current 

management direction of Arctic NWR. It 

provides the baseline against which to 

compare other alternatives. Under 

Alternative A, the refuge would 

continue to be managed according to the 

direction included in the 1988 plan. 

Current goals and objectives would not 

be changed. 

• Wilderness—No new areas would 

be recommended for Wilderness 

designation. 

• Wild and Scenic Rivers—No new 

rivers would be recommended for 

inclusion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System. 

• Kongakut River Visitor Use 

Management—Managers would 

continue to manage visitors using the 

following practices: Group size limits 

for guided groups (7 hikers, 10 floaters); 

and No group size limits for non-guided 

groups, although we recommend using 

commercial limits; Information on lowimpact camping and other best practices 

would continue to be available on the 

Refuge Web site. Commercial service 

providers would continue to have 

special use permits with occasional 

compliance checks by the Service. 

Monitoring of physical and social 

conditions and visitor impacts would 

continue to occur occasionally. Air 

operator permit holders would be 

required to land on non-vegetated 

surfaces and asked to follow all Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) 

advisories during flight operations. The 

Service would prepare a Public Use 

Management Plan (as required by the 

1988 plan). 

Alternative B 

• Wilderness—Recommend the 

Brooks Range Wilderness Study Area to 

Congress for Wilderness designation. 

• Wild and Scenic Rivers— 

Recommend the Hulahula, Kongakut, 

and Marsh Fork Canning Rivers to 

Congress for inclusion into the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

• Kongakut River Visitor Use 

Management—Under this alternative, 

and immediately upon plan approval, 

we would proceed with two concurrent 

step-down plans: A Visitor Use 

Management Plan (VUMP) and a 

Wilderness Stewardship Plan (WSP). In 

addition to the practices identified 

under Alternative A, we would 

implement interim measures. The refuge 

would expand monitoring of degraded 

sites, work with guides to reduce visitor 

volume, work with air operators to 

disperse flights over high-use areas, 

publish a schedule of when guides will 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
4304 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 2015 / Notices 

be launching trips, step up enforcement 

of permit conditions and Refuge 

regulations, and set an interim cap on 

commercial recreation guides from 2013 

through 2016 or through completion of 

the VUMP/WSP, whichever comes first. 

Alternative C 

• Wilderness—Recommend the 

Coastal Plain Wilderness Study Area to 

Congress for Wilderness designation. 

• Wild and Scenic Rivers— 

Recommend the Atigun River to 

Congress for inclusion into the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

• Kongakut River Visitor Use 

Management—Under this alternative, 

management would be the same as 

under Alternative B. 

Alternative D 

• Wilderness—Recommend the 

Brooks Range and Porcupine Plateau 

Wilderness Study Areas to Congress for 

Wilderness designation. 

• Wild and Scenic Rivers— 

Recommend the Atigun, Kongakut, and 

Marsh Fork Canning Rivers, and those 

portions of the Hulahula River managed 

by the Refuge, to Congress for inclusion 

into the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System. 

• Kongakut River Visitor Use 

Management—Under this alternative, 

management would be the same as 

Alternative B, except there would be no 

interim cap on commercial recreation 

guides. 

Alternative E 

• Wilderness—Recommend the 

Brooks Range, Porcupine Plateau, and 

Coastal Plain Wilderness Study Areas to 

Congress for Wilderness designation. 

• Wild and Scenic Rivers— 

Recommend the Atigun, Hulahula, 

Kongakut, and Marsh Fork Canning 

Rivers to Congress for inclusion into the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System. 

• Kongakut River Visitor Use—Under 

this alternative, management would be 

the same as under Alternative D. 

Alternative F 

Under Alternative F much of the 

management direction outlined in 

Alternative A would continue. The 

goals and objectives and management 

policies and guidelines described in the 

plan would be adopted. 

• Wilderness—No new areas would 

be recommended for Wilderness 

designation. 

• Wild and Scenic River—No new 

rivers would be recommended for 

inclusion into the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System. 

• Kongakut River Visitor Use—Under 

this alternative, management would be 

the same as under Alternative D. 

Preferred Alternative 

The Service selected Alternative E as 

the Preferred Alternative for the revised 

plan for Arctic Refuge. Alternative E 

addresses the key issues and concerns 

identified during the planning process 

and will best achieve the purposes of 

the refuge, the mission of the NWRS, 

and maintain the refuge’s special values. 

Wilderness: Alternative E 

recommends the qualified and suitable 

lands and waters in three Wilderness 

Study Areas (nearly 12.28 million acres) 

for inclusion in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System. If Congress were to 

designate these acres as Wilderness, 

nearly the entire refuge would be 

managed to preserve Wilderness 

character while providing for the public 

purposes of recreational, scenic, 

scientific, educational, conservation, 

and historical use. Wilderness Act 

purposes would be within and 

supplemental to the purposes of the 

refuge. Wilderness designation would 

provide statutory protection for 

resources in the refuge and represents a 

more permanent commitment to 

perpetuating the refuge’s natural 

conditions, ecological processes, and 

wilderness-associated recreational 

opportunities. Until Congress makes a 

decision regarding this 

recommendation, the Wilderness Study 

Areas will continue to be managed 

under Minimal Management. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers: Four rivers 

are recommended for inclusion in the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System: The Atigun, Marsh Fork 

Canning, Hulahula, and Kongakut 

rivers. The Refuge will implement the 

interim management prescriptions 

described in the revised plan (Appendix 

I) to maintain the outstandingly 

remarkable and other values of these 

rivers until Congress makes a decision 

regarding the recommendation. If 

Congress were to designate these four 

rivers, the refuge would prepare a 

Comprehensive River Management Plan 

specific to each of the four rivers. These 

plans would: Describe the existing 

resource conditions in the river 

corridor; define the goals and desired 

conditions for protecting river values; 

address the types and amounts of public 

use the river area can sustain (i.e., user 

capacities); address water quality issues 

and instream flow requirements; and 

include a monitoring strategy to 

maintain desired conditions. 

Kongakut River Visitor Management: 

The refuge will implement interim 

management measures (not including a 

cap on commercial recreation guides) to 

better manage visitor use of the 

Kongakut River pending completion of 

a refuge-wide Visitor Use Management 

Plan. These interim measures include: 

Working with guides to reduce visitor 

volume and to disperse flights; 

publishing a launch schedule; 

developing new outreach materials with 

targeted messages; increasing 

enforcement of permit conditions and 

refuge regulations; and identifying and 

repairing degraded sites. 

Summary: Arctic Refuge serves a 

distinctive function in the NWRS as a 

landscape that is essentially unaltered 

and free-functioning, contains 

outstanding natural diversity, and 

provides a benchmark for wilderness 

qualities and for perpetuating biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental 

health. Alternative E provides assurance 

that the refuge’s special values and 

distinctive function will be protected 

and perpetuated for future generations. 

This alternative adopts the management 

goals and objectives and revised 

management policies and guidelines 

(Chapter 2). Our implementation of 

Alternative E will occur over the next 15 

to 20 years, depending on future staffing 

levels and funding. 

Factors Considered in Making the 

Decision 

The decision was based on a thorough 

analysis of the environmental, social, 

and economic considerations presented 

in the revised plan and final EIS. The 

Service reviewed and considered the 

impacts identified in Chapter 5 of the 

draft plan/EIS; relevant issues, 

concerns, and opportunities; input 

received throughout the planning 

process, including advice from technical 

experts and public comments on the 

draft plan/EIS; and other factors, 

including refuge purposes and relevant 

laws, regulations, and policies. The 

revised plan and final EIS addresses a 

variety of needs, including protection of 

fish and wildlife populations and their 

habitats and providing opportunities for 

fish and wildlife-dependent recreation, 

subsistence, and other public uses. 

Alternative E contributes significantly to 

achieving refuge purposes and goals. 

Alternative E also strengthens the 

monitoring of fish, wildlife, habitat, and 

public uses on the refuge to provide 

means to better respond to changing 

conditions in the surrounding 

landscape. 

Public Involvement 

We are releasing the revised plan and 

final EIS for a 30-day public review 

period. We are not soliciting public 

comments at this time. The Service has 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 2015 / Notices 4305 

afforded government agencies, tribes, 

and the public extensive opportunity to 

participate in the preparation of this 

EIS. 

We began the planning process with 

formal notification to nine federally 

recognized tribes, two Native village 

councils, the State of Alaska, four 

Federal agencies, two Regional Native 

corporations, one village corporation, 

and the North Slope Borough. We 

prepared the revised Plan/final EIS in 

coordination with the Alaska 

Department of Natural Resources, the 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, 

and the Native Village of Kaktovik, all 

of which had one or more 

representatives on the planning team. 

The National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) joined the 

planning team as a cooperating agency 

during preparation of the final EIS. We 

informally consulted with the Gwichyaa 

Zhee Gwich’in Tribal Government, the 

Native Village of Kaktovik, the Native 

Village of Venetie Tribal Government, 

the Arctic Village Council, and the 

Venetie Village Council on several 

occasions throughout the planning 

process, encouraging their participation 

in the revised plan. We formally 

consulted with the Gwichyaa Zhee 

Gwich’in Tribal Government, the Native 

Village of Kaktovik, and the Native 

Village of Venetie Tribal Government in 

June 2012. We formally consulted with 

Regional Native Corporation Doyon 

Limited in September 2012. 

The Service published a notice of 

intent to prepare the plan/EIS in the 

Federal Register on April 7, 2010 (75 FR 

17763). Scoping comments were 

accepted for 60 days. Open-house style 

meetings were held in Anchorage, 

Arctic Village, Barrow, Fairbanks, Fort 

Yukon, Kaktovik, and Venetie, Alaska. 

Public hearings were held in all these 

locations, as well as in Washington, DC 

The Service received 94,061 written and 

oral comments during the scoping 

process. 

A notice of availability for the draft 

plan/EIS was published in the Federal 

Register on August 15, 2011 (76 FR 

50490). The draft EIS was available for 

public comment from August 15 to 

November 15, 2011—a 90-day public 

comment period. The Service held 

open-house style meetings in Anchorage 

(September 20, 2011), Arctic Village 

(November 14, 2011), Fairbanks (August 

24, 2011), Fort Yukon (October 28, 

2011), Kaktovik (October 25, 2011), and 

Venetie, Alaska (November 15, 2011). In 

addition, we held six public hearings on 

the draft in Anchorage (September 21, 

2011), Arctic Village (November 14, 

2011), Fairbanks (October 19, 2011), 

Fort Yukon (October 28, 2011), Kaktovik 

(November 3, 2011), and Venetie 

(November 15, 2011). 

The Service received 612,285 

communications (an example of a 

communication could be an individual 

piece of mail, Web site submission, form 

letter, statement at a public hearing, 

etc.) during the public review period on 

the draft plan/EIS. We have considered 

all public comments throughout the 

process and have incorporated them in 

various ways, such as in identifying the 

significant planning issues and the 

different alternatives addressed in the 

revised plan/final EIS. 

Changes to the Revised Plan and Final 

EIS 

We made the following changes in the 

revised plan and final EIS from the draft 

plan/EIS: 

Wilderness Terminology—We added 

a ‘‘Note about Wilderness Terminology’’ 

to the front pages of Volumes 1, 2, and 

3 to explain how we use wildernessrelated terms throughout the revised 

plan. ‘‘Wilderness’’ (with a capital ‘‘W’’) 

refers to designated Wilderness lands, 

and ‘‘wilderness’’ (not capitalized) is 

used as an adjective to describe 

wilderness-related qualities across the 

Refuge, including in Minimal 

Management areas. 

Acreages—Many of the acreages listed 

in the revised plan/final EIS differ from 

those published elsewhere, including 

the draft plan. The revised acreages 

reflect our ability to more accurately 

measure land areas using such 

technologies as Geographic Information 

Systems (GIS). We added a ‘‘Note about 

Acreages’’ to the front pages of Volumes 

1, 2, and 3 to explain our approach. 

ANILCA—ANLICA Section 1004 does 

not apply to Arctic Refuge, and all 

references to it were removed from the 

revised plan/final EIS. 

Cooperating Agencies—Since the 

draft plan was released, we welcomed 

the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) as a cooperating 

agency. 

Refuge Purposes—We recently 

received clarification on how Refuge 

purposes guide management. 

Established in 1960, the Arctic National 

Wildlife Range (Range) was created ‘‘for 

the purpose of preserving unique 

wildlife, wilderness, and recreational 

values.’’ In 1980, ANILCA re-designated 

the Range as part of the Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge and provided four 

purposes that guide management of the 

entire Refuge. Under the provisions of 

Section 305 of ANILCA, the Range 

purposes from 1960 remain in force and 

effect on the lands and waters in the 

original Range only to the extent they 

are consistent with ANILCA and the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

(ANCSA). ANILCA purposes apply to 

the entire Refuge. The revised plan was 

edited to fully reflect this interpretation 

of Refuge purposes. 

Goals and Objectives—The goals and 

objectives included in the draft plan 

were revised based on public comment 

and Service review. Changes range from 

minor clarifications to major rewrites of 

goals and objectives. In some cases, 

multiple objectives in the draft plan 

were combined into one. Additionally, 

several new objectives were added to 

the revised plan. These objectives 

discuss restoration and rehabilitation of 

degraded and/or impaired sites; 

management of the Refuge’s Marine 

Protected Area; modifications to the 

Refuge’s management approach to 

climate change providing more 

flexibility in the range of available 

responses to climate change; assessment 

and inventory of water resources; and 

formal consultation with tribes and 

Alaska Native Regional Corporations on 

a wide range of environmental, 

biological, cultural, and subsistence 

issues and concerns. 

Management Policies and 

Guidelines—We made several changes 

to the Refuge’s management policies 

and guidelines, including rewriting the 

introduction to better explain how the 

guidelines were developed to meet the 

needs of Arctic Refuge, clarifying the 

authorities of the State of Alaska and the 

Service, expanding the discussion on 

U.S. government relations with tribal 

governments, and clarifying our intent 

to refrain from activities intended to 

resist the effects of climate change. We 

expanded the section on human safety 

and management emergencies to 

include threats to refuge resources; 

restriction of domestic animals such as 

sheep, goats, and camelids (llamas and 

alpacas) to prevent the spread of disease 

to wildlife; prohibition of the use of 

straw and hay for bedding for dogs; and 

prohibition of all except pelletized 

weed-free feed for pack animals, to 

reduce the potential introduction and 

spread of invasive plants. Finally, we 

removed the proposed permit and fees 

for temporary facilities related to the 

taking of fish and wildlife left in 

designated Wilderness from one season 

to the next. 

Alternatives—The projected budget to 

implement each of the alternatives was 

revised and is now lower than what was 

published in the draft plan. The options 

considered for management of visitor 

use on the Kongakut River were revised. 

A Public Use or Visitor Use 

Management Plan would be completed 

under all the alternatives, including 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
4306 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 27, 2015 / Notices 

Alternative A (No Action), and two of 

the alternatives now include an interim 

cap on commercial recreation guides 

from 2013 to 2016, or until step-down 

plans are completed. Step-down 

planning would begin immediately 

upon approval of the revised plan/final 

EIS, rather than 2 years after approval, 

and all management prescriptions put in 

place pending the step-down plans 

would be considered interim. 

Other Chapters and Appendices— 

Various chapters and appendices were 

revised and reworked since the draft 

plan and draft EIS. Chapter 1, 

Introduction, was updated with details 

about the public comment period on the 

draft plan and contains a new section 

entitled ‘‘Concerns Regarding Fish, 

Wildlife, and Habitats,’’ as required by 

ANILCA. Chapter 4, Affected 

Environment, has a new section on 

soundscape and a new section on 

cabins; in addition, subsections on 

climate change were added to the 

descriptions of water resources, 

vegetation, fish, birds, and mammals. 

Socioeconomic data were updated with 

2010 Census data, where available, and 

a new section on the Poker Flat 

Research Range and NASA’s Sounding 

Rockets Program was added. Chapter 5, 

Environmental Consequences, was 

reworked to provide more consistency, 

and to identify reasonably foreseeable 

future actions. Additionally, the chapter 

considers the effects of each proposed 

action on the Poker Flat Research Range. 

Step-down plans were reprioritized in 

Chapter 6, and the compatibility 

determinations were finalized and 

signed (Appendix G). The eligibility and 

suitability studies for the wild and 

scenic river review (Appendix I) were 

combined into a single report, and we 

added information about the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act and its management 

implications. 

Two New Volumes—A major change 

made since the draft plan is the addition 

of Volumes 3 and 4. Volume 3 

summarizes all the public comments 

received on the draft plan/EIS, presents 

the substantive comments we received, 

and includes the Service’s responses to 

each substantive comment. Volume 4 

contains indices to help the reader 

navigate through Volume 3 and contains 

full text samples of communications 

received on the draft plan. 

Comments 

We are not soliciting comments at this 

time. This release is intended to allow 

the public a period of review. Appendix 

J in Volume 2 of the plan includes a 

summary report of public comments 

received during the scoping period. 

Volume 3 of the revised plan contains 

a summary of public comments received 

on the draft plan/EIS and the Service’s 

responses to substantive comments. 

Volume 4 of the revised plan includes 

samples of public comments received 

on the draft plan/EIS. 

Next Steps 

Following conclusion of the 30-day 

public review period, a Record of 

Decision (ROD) will be signed in which 

we disclose the Service’s final decision 

and any conditions of approval. 

Availability of the ROD will be 

announced through the Federal 

Register, a press release, the Refuge’s 

Web site, and communications with 

those on the CCP mailing list. 

Geoffrey L. Haskett, 

Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Anchorage, Alaska. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01514 Filed 1–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

U.S. Geological Survey 

[GX15LR000F60100] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Request for Comments 

AGENCY: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of an extension and 

revision of a currently approved 

information collection (1028–0053). 

SUMMARY: We (the U.S. Geological 

Survey) will ask the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) to 

approve the information collection (IC) 

described below. The collection will 

consist of 27 forms. As part of the 

requested extension we will make 

several revisions to the number of the 

associated collection instruments. These 

revisions include: (1) Deleting USGS 

Form 9–4053–A, USGS Form 9–4073–A, 

and USGS Form 9–4097–A; (2) changing 

USGS Form 9–4094–A and USGS Form 

9–4095–A from monthly and annual to 

annual-only reporting forms; (3) 

changing USGS Form 9–4057–A and 

USGS Form 9–4060–A from quarterly 

and annual to annual-only reporting 

forms; and (4) decreasing the average 

burden time for USGS Form 9–4074–A 

from 2 hours to 1 hour. As required by 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 

1995, and as part of our continuing 

efforts to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, we invite the 

general public and other Federal 

agencies to take this opportunity to 

comment on this IC. This collection is 

scheduled to expire on August 31, 2015. 

DATES: To ensure that your comments 

are considered, we must receive them 

on or before March 30, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Please submit a copy of 

your comments to the Information 

Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. 

Geological Survey, 807 National Center, 

12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, VA 

20192 (mail); 703–648–7195 (fax); or gsinfo_collections@usgs.gov (email). 

Reference ‘Information Collection 1028– 

0053, Nonferrous Metals Surveys’ in all 

correspondence. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Sangine at 703–648–7720 

(telephone); escottsangine@usgs.gov 

(email); or by mail at U.S. Geological 

Survey, 989 National Center, 12201 

Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, VA 20192. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

Respondents to these forms supply 

the USGS with domestic production and 

consumption data for 22 ores, 

concentrates, and metals, some of which 

are considered strategic and critical. 

These data and derived information will 

be published as chapters in Minerals 

Yearbooks, monthly and quarterly 

Mineral Industry Surveys, annual 

Mineral Commodity Summaries, and 

special publications, for use by 

Government agencies, industry, 

education programs, and the general 

public. 

II. Data 

OMB Control Number: 1028–0053. 

Form Number: Various (27 forms). 

Title: Nonferrous Metals Surveys. 

Type of Request: Extension and 

revision of a currently approved 

collection. 

Affected Public: Business or OtherFor-Profit Institutions: U.S. nonfuel 

minerals producers and consumers of 

nonferrous metals and related materials. 

Respondent Obligation: None. 

Participation is voluntary. 

Frequency of Collection: Monthly, 

Quarterly, or Annually. 

Estimated Number of Annual 

Responses: 4,252. 

Estimated Time per Response: For 

each form, we will include an average 

burden time ranging from 20 minutes to 

1 hour. 

Annual Burden Hours: 3,212 hours. 

Estimated Reporting and 

Recordkeeping ‘‘Non-Hour Cost’’ 

Burden: There are no ‘‘non-hour cost’’ 

burdens associated with this collection 

of information. 

Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA 

(44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) provides that an 

agency may not conduct or sponsor a 

collection of information unless it 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES