47964 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 159 / Friday, August 15, 2008 / Notices 

ADDRESSES: Send your comments on the 

IC to Hope Grey, Information Collection 

Clearance Officer, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, MS 222–ARLSQ, 4401 North 

Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203 

(mail), or hope_grey@fws.gov (e-mail). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

request additional information about 

this IC, contact Hope Grey by mail or email (see ADDRESSES) or by telephone 

at (703) 358–2482. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

(MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.) prohibits 

the unauthorized take of migratory birds 

and authorizes the Secretary of the 

Interior to regulate take of migratory 

birds in the United States. Under this 

authority, we control the hunting of 

migratory game birds through 

regulations in 50 CFR part 20. On 

January 1, 1991, we banned lead shot for 

hunting waterfowl and coots in the 

United States. 

The regulations at 50 CFR 20.134 

outline the application and approval 

process for new types of nontoxic shot. 

When considering approval of a 

candidate material as nontoxic, we must 

ensure that it is not hazardous in the 

environment and that secondary 

exposure (ingestion of spent shot or its 

components) is not a hazard to 

migratory birds. To make that decision, 

we require each applicant to provide 

information about the solubility and 

toxicity of the candidate material. 

Additionally, for law enforcement 

purposes, a noninvasive field detection 

device must be available to distinguish 

candidate shot from lead shot. This 

information constitutes the bulk of an 

application for approval of nontoxic 

shot. The Director uses the data in the 

application to decide whether or not to 

approve a material as nontoxic. 

II. Data 

OMB Control Number: 1018-0067. 

Title: Approval Procedures for 

Nontoxic Shot and Shot Coatings, 50 

CFR 20.134. 

Service Form Number(s): None. 

Type of Request: Extension of 

currently approved collection. 

Affected Public: Businesses that 

produce and/or market approved 

nontoxic shot types or nontoxic shot 

coatings. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Required to 

obtain or retain a benefit. 

Frequency of Collection: On occasion. 

Total Annual Number of Responses: 

1. 

Completion Time per Response: 3,200 

hours. 

Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,200 

hours. 

Total Annual Nonhour Cost Burden: 

$17,500. 

III. Request for Comments 

We invite comments concerning this 

IC on: 

(1) Whether or not the collection of 

information is necessary, including 

whether or not the information will 

have practical utility; 

(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the 

burden for this collection of 

information; 

(3) Ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and 

(4) Ways to minimize the burden of 

the collection of information on 

respondents. 

Comments that you submit in 

response to this notice are a matter of 

public record. We will include and/or 

summarize each comment in our request 

to OMB to approve this IC. 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. 

Dated: July 11, 2008 

Hope Grey, 

Information Collection Clearance Officer, 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

FR Doc. E8–18891 Filed 8–14–08; 8:45 am 

Billing Code 4310–55–S 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R1–R–2008–N0145; 1265–0000–

10137–S3] 

Hanford Reach National Monument, 

Adams, Benton, Franklin and Grant 

Counties, WA 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of the final 

comprehensive conservation plan and 

environmental impact statement. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

availability of the final Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP) and 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

for the Hanford Reach National 

Monument (Monument). In this final 

CCP/EIS, we describe how the 

Monument will be managed for the next 

15 years. 

DATES: We will sign a Record of 

Decision no sooner than 30 days after 

publication of this notice. 

ADDRESSES: You may view or obtain 

copies of the final CCP/EIS by any of the 

following methods: 

Agency Web Site: Download a copy of 

the CCP/EIS at http:// 

www.hanfordreach.fws.gov. 

E-mail: E-mail your request to daniel_

haas@fws.gov. Unless otherwise 

specified, copies of the final CCP/EIS 

will be provided on a compact disk. 

Mail: Mail your request to Dan Haas, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 3250 

Port of Benton Boulevard, Richland, WA 

99354. 

In-Person Viewing or Pickup: The 

final CCP/EIS can be obtained at the 

address above, Monday thru Thursday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and Friday 8:30 

a.m. to 3:30 p.m. 

Local Libraries: The final CCP/EIS is 

available at public libraries in 

Kennewick, Pasco, and Richland, 

Washington (see http:// 

www.hanfordreach.fws.gov for details). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg 

Hughes or Dan Haas, at (509) 371–1801 

or daniel_haas@fws.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

With this notice, we announce the 

availability of the final CCP/EIS for the 

Monument in accordance with National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 

CFR 1506.6(b)) requirements. The 

Service completed a thorough analysis 

of impacts on the human environment, 

which are included in the final EIS for 

the CCP. The CCP identifies Alternative 

C–1 as the Service’s preferred 

alternative. We released the Draft CCP/ 

EIS to the public, announcing and 

requesting comments in a notice of 

availability in the Federal Register (71 

FR 239 74929–74931; December 13, 

2006). 

The Monument was established in 

2000 by Presidential Proclamation 7319 

(Proclamation) under the authority of 

the American Antiquities Act of 1906 

(16 U.S.C. §§ 431–33, 34 Stat. 225). The 

Monument’s lands forms a horseshoe 

shape around the Department of 

Energy’s (DOE) Hanford Nuclear 

Reservation, comprising 196,000 acres 

of the 375,000-acre site. The Monument 

is managed by both the Service and 

DOE, with the Service-managed areas 

administered under a permit from the 

DOE. 

Natural and Cultural Resources 

The Monument was established to 

protect a wide variety of natural and 

cultural resources. It contains one of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 159 / Friday, August 15, 2008 / Notices 47965 

two remaining large expanses of shrubsteppe habitat in Washington, 

supporting shrub-steppe obligate bird 

and reptile species, healthy populations 

of mule deer and coyotes, game birds 

including gray partridge and chukars, 

and a large elk herd. Forty-seven miles 

of the last free-flowing stretch of the 

Columbia River flows through the 

Monument, maintaining commercially 

viable populations of fall Chinook 

salmon, healthy waterfowl populations, 

game fish such as largemouth bass and 

walleye, many of the last remaining big 

sturgeon in the Columbia River system, 

and large populations of waterbirds 

such as white pelicans, black-crowned 

night herons, and overwintering bald 

eagles. The Monument also supports 

several endangered, threatened, or 

sensitive species, including spring 

Chinook salmon, Columbia River 

steelhead, ferruginous hawks, 

persistentsepal yellowcress, Umtanum 

desert buckwheat, and White Bluffs 

bladderpod. The Monument also may 

provide viable habitat for northern 

wormwood, western sage grouse, and 

pygmy rabbits. 

The abundance of wildlife has led to 

a millennia of use by American Indians, 

resulting in a rich base of cultural 

resources, including prehistoric and 

traditional activities still in practice. 

The Monument also contains many of 

the modern cultural artifacts related to 

operation of the Hanford Nuclear 

Reservation. 

Background 

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 

668dd–668ee), which amended the 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966, requires the 

Service to develop a CCP for each 

national wildlife refuge. The purpose in 

developing a CCP is to provide refuge 

managers a 15-year plan for achieving 

refuge purposes and contributing 

toward the National Wildlife Refuge 

System mission, 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 

habitats, CCPs identify wildlifedependent recreational opportunities 

including hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, and 

environmental education and 

interpretation. Each CCP is reviewed 

periodically and updated at least once 

every 15 years in accordance with the 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act and NEPA. 

CCP Alternatives 

The Draft CCP/EIS addressed priority 

issues raised by the Service, other 

governmental partners, American Indian 

tribes, special interest groups, and the 

public. To address these priority issues, 

we developed and evaluated eight 

alternatives—A, B, B–1, C, C–1, D, E, 

and F—during the planning process. We 

solicited comments on the Draft CCP/ 

EIS from December 6, 2006, to March 

10, 2007. We received 308 comment 

communications. When possible and 

appropriate, comments were 

incorporated into the final CCP/EIS. In 

Appendix B of the final CCP/EIS 

responses to all substantive comments 

are provided. All the alternatives 

address all significant issues. 

Alternative A: No Action. Alternative 

A assumes no change from existing 

management and thus provides a 

baseline for evaluating impacts of the 

other alternatives. Current management 

practices would be continued in 

accordance with Proclamation mandates 

and agreements, to conserve and protect 

biological, geological, paleontological 

and cultural resources. Conservation 

activities would involve inventory and 

monitoring, habitat restoration, invasive 

species control, fire protection, fire 

rehabilitation, and maintenance of 

existing facilities. Land use designations 

in place at the time of Monument 

establishment would be maintained. 

Public access for recreational, 

interpretive and educational purposes 

would continue year-round in 

designated areas and would be 

restricted from sensitive resource areas. 

Limited interpretive and educational 

programs would be presented on 

request, dependent upon staff 

availability. 

Alternative B. Alternative B 

emphasizes restoration of native plants 

and animals in upland, riparian and 

aquatic habitats. Compared to the other 

alternatives, Alternative B would 

provide the greatest emphasis on 

conservation, protection and monitoring 

of the biological, geological, 

paleontological and cultural resources 

described in the Proclamation. 

Increased opportunities for restorationbased research of the native landscape 

and habitats for species of concern 

would be promoted, and information 

sharing between partners and 

researchers would be encouraged. 

Public access for day-use recreation, 

interpretation, and education would 

continue year-round in designated 

areas, with a greater degree of 

management controls and use 

restrictions in place to ensure resource 

protection, when compared to other 

alternatives. Visitor facilities would be 

developed only in the Monument’s least 

sensitive areas and only after a 

comprehensive inventory of resources is 

conducted and sensitive resources are 

identified in the area under 

consideration. Interpretation and 

education programs would be provided; 

however, fewer people would be served 

than in Alternatives C, C–1, D, E and F. 

Alternative B–1. Alternative B–1 is 

identical to Alternative B, except that 

hunting would not be allowed anywhere 

on the Monument. 

Alternative C. Alternative C would 

protect and conserve biological, 

geological, paleontological and cultural 

resources described in the Proclamation, 

by creating and maintaining extensive 

areas within the Monument that are free 

of facility development. This would 

serve conservation, restoration, 

protection, and recreation purposes by 

maintaining large natural landscapes, 

protecting sensitive resources, and 

providing opportunities for solitude. 

The facilities and access points that 

would be provided would be 

concentrated to minimize overall 

impacts to the Monument and to 

provide economies of scale in 

management and maintenance. Public 

access points and recreational facilities 

would be planned and developed along 

highways and in perimeter areas of the 

Monument. Certain existing facilities 

and infrastructure currently present 

within the Monument would be 

relocated. Vehicle access into the 

interior of the Monument would be 

limited; however, much of the 

Monument would be open to foot and 

other non-motorized access. Facilities, 

such as the boat-in campsites along the 

Hanford Reach provided for in this 

alternative, would be developed after 

inventories of resources are conducted 

and sensitive resources are identified in 

the areas under consideration. 

Interpretation and education programs 

would serve greater numbers of people 

than Alternatives A, B, C–1 and F, but 

fewer than Alternatives D and E. 

Alternative C–1. Alternative C–1 was 

developed in response to comments 

received on the draft CCP from tribes, 

cooperating agencies, local 

governments, and the general public. 

Like Alternative C, Alternative C–1 

would protect and conserve the 

biological, geological, paleontological 

and cultural resources described in the 

Proclamation, by creating and 

maintaining extensive areas free of 

facility development. This would serve 

conservation, restoration, protection, 

and recreation purposes by maintaining 

large natural landscapes, protecting 

sensitive resources, and providing 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

47966 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 159 / Friday, August 15, 2008 / Notices 

opportunities for solitude. The facilities 

and access points that would be 

provided would be concentrated 

together to minimize overall impacts to 

the Monument and to provide 

economies of scale in management and 

maintenance. Public access points and 

recreational facilities would be planned 

and developed along highways and in 

perimeter areas. Unlike Alternative C, 

existing facilities and infrastructure 

currently present would not be 

relocated or closed, such as the White 

Bluffs Boat Launch. Vehicle access into 

the Monument’s interior would be less 

limited, although like Alternative C, 

much of the Monument would be open 

to foot and other non-motorized access. 

Facilities, such as the boat-in campsites 

along Hanford Reach provided for in 

this alternative, would be developed 

after inventories of resources are 

conducted and sensitive resources are 

identified in the area under 

consideration. Interpretation and 

education programs would serve greater 

numbers of people than Alternatives A, 

B, B–1 and F, but fewer than 

Alternatives C, D and E. 

Alternative D. Alternative D provides 

the greatest degree of public access, 

recreational opportunities, and facilities 

development. The conservation, 

protection and monitoring of the 

biological, geological, paleontological 

and cultural resources described in the 

Proclamation would still be the primary 

priorities; however, more time, effort 

and resources would be devoted to 

public use than in the other alternatives, 

likely decreasing the resources and 

attention available to restoration 

activities. Resource inventories, 

identification of sensitive areas, and 

restoration activities would be 

concentrated in the areas of highest 

public use. Resource protection, 

restoration research, and monitoring 

would focus on the impacts created 

from recreational activities. Public 

access sites and facilities would be 

developed throughout the Monument 

and to a greater extent than Alternatives 

A, B, B–1, C, C–1 and F; access would 

be restricted from the most sensitive 

areas. Visitor facilities would include 

improved boat launches, auto tour 

routes, and campgrounds. Interpretation 

and education programs would serve 

the highest number of people of all the 

alternatives. 

Alternative E. Alternative E was 

formulated by the Monument’s Federal 

Advisory Committee during a workshop 

held June 16–17, 2004. It provides an 

alternate public use emphasis to that of 

Alternative D. Alternative E provides a 

high degree of public access and 

facilities development. It does this 

through the combination of elements 

from Alternatives C and D. The 

underlying open space concept of 

Alternative C is maintained through the 

concentration of facilities in perimeter 

areas; however, access and areas open to 

the public more closely resemble 

Alternative D. Again, the conservation, 

protection and monitoring of the 

biological, geological, paleontological, 

and cultural resources described in the 

Proclamation is the top priority, but as 

in Alternative D, substantial effort and 

resources would be devoted to public 

use, likely decreasing the resources 

available for restoration activities. 

Resource inventories, identification of 

sensitive areas and restoration activities 

would be concentrated in areas of 

highest public use. Resource protection, 

restoration research, and monitoring 

would focus on impacts created from 

recreational activities. Public access 

points and facilities would be 

developed in perimeter areas and to a 

greater extent than Alternatives A, B 

and F; access would be restricted from 

the most sensitive areas. Visitor 

facilities would include improved boat 

launches and campgrounds. 

Interpretation and education programs 

would serve a high number of people, 

although not as many as Alternative D. 

Alternative F. The Confederated 

Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 

Reservation (CTUIR) developed this 

alternative using Alternative B as its 

basis for management emphasis and 

public access. While similar to 

Alternative B, Alternative F would 

provide a slight increase in the areas 

open to public access. The one 

significant difference is the proposed 

addition of a public access permit 

system, with the possible establishment 

of fee areas. Interpretation and 

education programs would be provided; 

however, fewer people would be served 

than in Alternatives C, C–1, D and E. 

Preferred Alternative. We have 

identified Alternative C–1, as described 

above, as our preferred alternative, 

pending a final selection to be 

documented in a Record of Decision. 

Dated: May 23, 2008. 

Renne R. Lohoefener, 

Regional Director, Region 1, Portland, Oregon. 

[FR Doc. E8–18445 Filed 8–14–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[ID–410–1990–EX–069D–241A, DEG080007] 

Notice of Intent To Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Buffalo Gulch Mining Project, 

Cottonwood Field Office, Idaho 

County, ID 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of intent (NOI) to prepare 

an environmental impact statement. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land 

Management Cottonwood Field Office 

will prepare an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) consistent with the 

regulations pertaining to the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

Under the provisions of Section 

102(2)(c) of the NEPA, the BLM 

announces its intentions to prepare an 

EIS and solicit public comments 

regarding issues and resource 

information for this project. 

The BLM will analyze a proposal from 

Elk City Mining, LLC (ECM) to advance 

the Buffalo Gulch Mining Project to full 

scale production near Elk City, Idaho 

County, Idaho. This project was 

originally permitted in 1990 but never 

went into production. ECM’s Plan of 

Operations includes an open pit mining 

operation and a cyanide heap leach 

facility to recover gold from the mined 

ore on their unpatented mining claims. 

DATES: The public scoping period for 

the Buffalo Gulch Mining Project will 

begin with publication of this NOI and 

end 30 days later. The purpose of the 

public scoping process is to determine 

relevant issues that will influence the 

scope of the environmental analysis and 

EIS alternatives. BLM will ensure the 

public is notified of all opportunities for 

involvement related to this proposal at 

least 15 days prior to the event. A public 

meeting in Elk City, Idaho, and possible 

field trip to the project site, is scheduled 

for August 28, 2008. Additional 

information about this or additional 

meetings will be announced through 

local news media outlets, individual 

mailings, and the following BLM Web 

site: http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/fo/

cottonwood.html. 

The draft EIS is expected to be 

distributed for public review and 

comment in the fall of 2009. The final 

EIS is expected to be completed four to 

six months later. 

ADDRESSES: More detailed information 

about this project is available at the 

Cottonwood Field Office, 1 Butte Drive, 

Cottonwood, Idaho, 83522. Please 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES