Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 78 / Friday, April 24, 2009 / Notices 18745 

annually until the island was destroyed 

by a hurricane in 2005. The key once 

hosted the largest royal tern and 

sandwich tern nesting colonies in the 

State of Florida. Because of its fragility, 

small size, and to protect the migratory 

birds that use the island, it is now 

closed to public use year-round. 

CCP Alternatives, Including Our 

Proposed Alternative 

We developed three alternatives for 

managing the refuges and chose 

Alternative B as the proposed 

alternative. A full description is in the 

Draft CCP/EA. We summarize each 

alternative below. 

Alternative A—No Action Alternative 

Under Alternative A, the no action 

alternative, management of the refuges 

would continue at the current level. The 

refuges would continue their primary 

mission of providing habitat for 

wildlife. Wildlife and habitat would be 

protected through a variety of 

management tools, such as area 

closures, predator control, law 

enforcement, exotic plant control, 

erosion control, and cleanup of trash. 

These activities (except for the closures) 

would be conducted on an 

opportunistic basis or under the 

direction and guidance of others. 

The refuges would continue to be 

managed by one full-time assistant 

refuge manager, with the support of 

nine staff members 100 miles away at 

the Chassahowitzka NWR. The refuges 

would continue to be assisted by 

numerous partners in opportunistically 

conducting bird and other wildlife 

surveys, educating visitors, and 

encouraging wildlife observation and 

photography. The Service would 

continue its cooperative management 

agreement with the FPS to manage 

Egmont Key NWR, with the State being 

responsible for most public recreation 

and interpretation of natural and 

cultural resources, and the Service being 

primarily responsible for the 

management of all wildlife and habitat. 

Meetings between the two agencies 

would continue to be held 

approximately twice a year. 

Under this alternative, the existing 

level of funding and staffing would be 

maintained. Accordingly, some 

positions would not be filled when 

vacated if funds needed to be 

reallocated to meet rising costs or new 

priorities. 

Alternative B—Proposed Alternative 

Under Alternative B, the proposed 

alternative, the Service would take more 

of a leadership role by coordinating 

and/or directing activities and decisions 

made by partners that have an impact 

on the refuges, including coordinating, 

directing, and conducting bird surveys 

and Atlantic loggerhead sea turtle 

surveys; coordinating additional bird 

surveys and monitoring and conducting 

research on the gopher tortoises of 

Egmont Key NWR; and, with partners, 

identifying, mapping, and protecting 

State-listed plant species on the refuges. 

The Service would promote and support 

increasing the Friends Group to more 

than 150 members. 

Under this alternative, Service staff 

dedicated to the Tampa Bay Refuges 

would be increased to four full-time 

permanent employees and one part-time 

permanent employee, which would 

include the addition of a law 

enforcement officer to increase 

protection of wildlife, habitat, and 

visitor safety; a biological technician to 

conduct bird surveys, predator and 

exotic species control, and beach 

renourishment activities; a public use 

specialist to facilitate and create 

opportunities for environmental 

education, interpretation, and wildlife 

observation and photography; and a 

part-time administrative assistant. 

Larger office space to accommodate the 

increased staff along with the Friends 

Group would be acquired, as well as 

facilities for boat storage and use; also, 

a Visitor Center would be established. 

The cooperative agreement with FPS 

to manage Egmont Key NWR would be 

enhanced under this alternative by 

establishing monthly communications 

and quarterly meetings. Further, the 

Service would facilitate the transfer of 

the USCG property on Egmont Key to 

the Service, and would establish the 

Service’s interest in the Pilots 

Compound property in the event the 

occupancy of that property changes. 

Acquisition of these lands would enable 

the Service to better conserve, protect, 

and manage the habitat on Egmont Key. 

Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, the Service 

would take on an even greater 

leadership role at the refuges, enhancing 

and expanding the activities proposed 

under Alternative B. The Service staff 

dedicated to the Tampa Bay Refuges 

would be increased to seven full-time 

permanent employees, including two 

law enforcement officers, one biological 

technician, one public use specialist, 

one maintenance person/equipment 

operator, and an administrative 

assistant. The Service would promote 

and support increasing the Friends 

Group to 200–300 members. Additional 

equipment and facilities would be 

acquired to support the staff and 

increased activities on the refuges. 

The additional staff members would 

allow the refuges to increase the 

frequency of some monitoring (e.g., 

piping plover); initiate bird research; 

routinely monitor and research gopher 

tortoises; enhance protection of wildlife, 

habitats, and visitor safety; control 

exotic and invasive vegetation on a 

routine basis; and provide educational 

events on a routine basis, including 

weekly interpretive tours using 

concessionaire(s) selected and operating 

under Service contract. 

Under this alternative, the Service 

would own and manage all of Egmont 

Key without sharing that responsibility 

with FPS—an overlay state park 

managed by FPS would no longer exist, 

allowing the Service to manage the 

island in a comprehensive manner. 

Next Step 

After the comment period ends, we 

will analyze the comments and address 

them. 

Public Availability of Comments 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment, including your 

personal identifying information, may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Authority: This notice is published under 

the authority of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997, Public 

Law 105–57. 

Dated: March 13, 2009. 

Cynthia K. Dohner, 

Acting Regional Director. 

[FR Doc. E9–9412 Filed 4–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND 

WATER COMMISSION, UNITED 

STATES AND MEXICO, UNITED 

STATES SECTION 

Notice of Availability of a Draft 

Environmental Assessment and Draft 

Finding of No Significant Impact for 

Flood Control Improvements to the 

Arroyo Colorado Floodway 

AGENCY: United States Section, 

International Boundary and Water 

Commission, United States and Mexico. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Draft 

Environmental Assessment (EA) and 

Draft Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI). 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

18746 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 78 / Friday, April 24, 2009 / Notices 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) 

of the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.), the Council on Environmental 

Quality Final Regulations (40 CFR Parts 

1500 through 1508), and the United 

States Section, International Boundary 

and Water Commission’s (USIBWC) 

Operational Procedures for 

Implementing Section 102 of NEPA, 

published in the Federal Register 

September 2, 1981 (46 FR 44083); the 

USIBWC hereby gives notice of 

availability of the Draft Environmental 

Assessment and Draft FONSI for Flood 

Control Improvements to the Arroyo 

Colorado Floodway, which is part of the 

interior floodways in the Lower Rio 

Grande Flood Control Project. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rita 

Crites, Environmental Protection 

Specialist, Environmental Management 

Division, United States Section, 

International Boundary and Water 

Commission; 4171 N. Mesa, C–100; El 

Paso, Texas 79902. Telephone: (915) 

832–4781; e-mail: rfcrites@ibwc.gov. 

DATES: The Draft EA and Draft FONSI 

will be available April 27, 2009. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Arroyo Colorado is an ancient 

distributary of the Rio Grande, and it 

serves as drainage for crop irrigation, 

municipal wastewater returns, and as a 

floodway during periods of heavy 

precipitation in the Lower Rio Grande 

Valley. The project area includes 2.1 

miles of the Divisor Dike, and 

approximately 8.4 miles of the Arroyo 

Colorado north levee. 

The USIBWC prepared this EA for the 

proposed action to increase flood 

containment capacity of the Arroyo 

Colorado Levee System by raising the 

elevation of this segment for improved 

flood protection. This action will also 

address the 100-year flood protection 

criteria established by the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA). 

The beginning of this project is at the 

Divisor Dike near the juncture point of 

the Arroyo Colorado and the North 

Floodway in Hidalgo County and the 

ending is at White Ranch Road in 

Cameron County, Texas. 

The proposed levee rehabilitation 

improvements consist of: (1) Raising the 

top-of-levee elevation, (2) conducting 

geotechnical investigations and testing 

to determine the type and extent of any 

required remediation improvements due 

to slope stability, seepage, levee 

settlement, and any other geotechnical 

issues that may cause levee failure 

during a 100-year flood event and (3) 

modifying, if necessary, hardware or 

structures located along the levee 

reaches. Any modifications will be in 

compliance with the Texas Historical 

Commission recommendations. The top 

elevation of the levee-raising 

improvements will be to provide 

containment of flood flows with a 

minimum freeboard of 3 feet for water 

surface elevations as calculated in the 

USIBWC 2003 Hydraulic Model for the 

LRGFCP. Raising on the riverside of the 

levee will be the most probable 

alternative given the nature of the rightof-way in the area. 

Alternatives 

The USIBWC completed an EA of the 

potential environmental consequences 

of raising the Arroyo Colorado 

Floodway to meet current requirements 

for flood control. The EA, which 

supports the Finding of No Significant 

Impact, evaluated the Proposed Action 

and No Action Alternative. 

Availability 

Single hard copies of the Final 

Environmental Assessment and Final 

Finding of No Significant Impact may be 

obtained by request at the above 

address. Electronic copies may also be 

obtained from the USIBWC Home Page 

at http://www.ibwc.gov/home.html. 

Dated: April 17, 2009. 

Robert McCarthy, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. E9–9322 Filed 4–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7010–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under the Clean Air Act 

Notice is hereby given that on April 

20,2009, a proposed Consent Decree in 

United States of America et al. v. E.I. du 

Pont de Nemours & Co., and Lucite 

International, Inc., Civil Action No. 

2:09–0385 was lodged with the United 

States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia. 

In this action the United States, on 

behalf of the Administrator of the 

United States Environmental Protection 

Agency, sought injunctive relief and 

civil penalties under Section 113(b) of 

the Clean Air Act (‘‘Act’’), 42 U.S.C. 

7413(b), for alleged violations at a 

sulfuric acid regeneration plant 

(‘‘Plant’’) owned by Lucite and operated 

by DuPont in Belle, West Virginia. The 

Complaint alleged violations of: (1) The 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

provisions of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7470– 

92; (2) the New Source Performance 

Standards of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7411; (3) 

the Title V Permit requirements of the 

Act, 42 U.S.C. 7661–7661f; and (4) the 

federally approved and enforceable state 

implementation plan which 

incorporates and/or implements the 

above-listed federal regulations. 

The Consent Decree resolves the 

United States’s Clean Air Act claims at 

the Plant by requiring that Defendants: 

(i) Pay a civil penalty of $2,000,000, to 

be split evenly with the State of West 

Virginia; and (ii) cease operations at the 

Plant by April 1, 2010, and surrender all 

air permits to the State. This settlement 

reflects the fact that Defendants have 

decided, for independent business 

reasons, to shut the Plant. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

for a period of thirty (30) days from the 

date of this publication comments 

relating to the Decree. Comments should 

be addressed to the Assistant Attorney 

General, Environmental and Natural 

Resources Division, and either e-mailed 

to pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or 

mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611, and should refer to United 

States of America et al. v. E.I. du Pont 

de Nemours & Co., and Lucite 

International, Inc., Civil Action No. 

2:09–0385 (S.D. WV), D.J. Ref. 90–5–2– 

1–09251. 

The Decree may be examined at U.S. 

EPA Region 3, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, PA 19103. During the 

public comment period, the Decree may 

also be examined on the following 

Department of Justice Web site, http:// 

www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the 

Decree may also be obtained by mail 

from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. 

Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC 20044–7611 or by 

faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia 

Fleetwood (tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), 

fax no. (202) 514–0097, phone 

confirmation number (202) 514–1547. In 

requesting a copy from the Consent 

Decree Library, please enclose a check 

in the amount of $23.25 (25 cents per 

page reproduction cost) payable to the 

U.S. Treasury or, if by e-mail or fax, 

forward a check in that amount to the 

Consent Decree Library at the stated 

address. 

Maureen Katz, 

Assistant Section Chief, Environmental 

Enforcement Section, Environment and 

Natural Resources Division. 

[FR Doc. E9–9399 Filed 4–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES