52360 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 25, 2010 / Notices 

you may request that we withhold your 

personally identifiable information, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

III. Data 

OMB Control Number: 1076–0163. 

Title: No Child Left Behind, 25 CFR 

30, 37, 39, 42, 44, and 47. 

Brief Description of Collection: 

Pursuant to NCLB, BIE-funded schools 

must prepare reports such as the Annual 

Report; the School Report Card; Section 

1114 Plans; financial budgets; school 

improvement plans; compliance action 

plans as a result of monitoring; Title II, 

Part A reports showing that highly 

qualified staff have been hired; Title IV, 

Part A, Safe and Drug Free Schools and 

Communities reports; competitive subgrant reports; Indian School 

Equalization (ISEP) reports; and 

transportation reports. Response is 

required to obtain a benefit (continued 

supplementary program funding). 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change of a currently approved 

collection. 

Respondents: BIE-funded schools. 

Number of Respondents: 184. 

Total Number of Responses: 706. 

Frequency of Response: Quarterly or 

annually, depending on the item. 

Estimated Time per Response: Ranges 

from 1 hour to 48 hours (30 per 

response on average). 

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 

21,180 hours. 

Dated: August 12, 2010. 

Alvin Foster, 

Acting Chief Information Officer—Indian 

Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21089 Filed 8–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–4J–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Upper Truckee River Restoration and 

Golf Course Reconfiguration Project, 

El Dorado County, CA 

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of the 

Draft Environmental Impact Report/ 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/ 

EIS), and notice of public hearing. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the 

California Environmental Quality Act 

(CEQA), and Article VII of the Tahoe 

Regional Planning Compact and Chapter 

5 of the Tahoe Regional Planning 

Agency (TRPA) Code of Ordinances, the 

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), 

California Department of Parks and 

Recreation (State Parks), and TRPA have 

made available for public review and 

comment the draft EIR/EIS for the 

Upper Truckee River Restoration and 

Golf Course Reconfiguration Project 

(Project). Depending on which 

alternative is selected, the proposed 

restoration project may include 

continuing existing golf course use, 

removal of the entire Lake Tahoe Golf 

Course, or reconfiguration of the golf 

course to allow for restoration of the 

river, to reduce the area of Stream 

Environment Zone occupied by the golf 

course, and to allow for establishment of 

a buffer area between the golf course 

and the river. 

DATES: Submit written comments on the 

draft EIR/EIS on or before November 4, 

2010. 

Two public hearings will be held on 

October 13 and October 27, 2010, 

starting at 9:30 a.m. in Stateline, 

Nevada, to receive oral and written 

comments regarding the project’s 

environmental effects. 

ADDRESSES: Send any written comments 

on the Draft EIR/EIS to Cyndie Walck, 

State of California Department of Parks 

and Recreation, Sierra District, P.O. Box 

16, Tahoe City, CA 96145. Comments 

may be faxed to the State Parks office at 

530–581–5849. Comments by e-mail are 

preferred for an electronic record. For 

comments provided via e-mail, please 

utilize the following format: 

E-mail to: utproject@parks.ca.gov. 

Subject Line: River-Golf Course EIR/ 

EIS/EIS 

Directions: 

(1) Attach comments in an MS Word 

document. 

(2) Include commenter’s U.S. Postal 

Service mailing address in MS Word. 

All comments will be distributed by 

State Parks to TRPA and Bureau of 

Reclamation. 

The public hearings will be held at 

128 Market Street, Stateline, Nevada. 

The Draft EIR/EIS is accessible at the 

following Web sites: http:// 

www.restoreuppertruckee.net/ 

index.htm; http://www.parks.ca.gov/ 

?page_id=981 (click on El Dorado 

County); http://www.trpa.org; http:// 

www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/ 

nepa_projdetails.cfm?Project_ID=5760. 

The draft EIR/EIS is available for 

review by the public during normal 

business hours at the following 

locations: 

• State Parks’ Administrative office at 

Sugarpine Point State Park, 7360 West 

Lake Boulevard, Tahoma, CA 96142. 

• TRPA front desk, 128 Market Street, 

Stateline, NV 89449. 

• Mid-Pacific Regional Library, 

Bureau of Reclamation, 2800 Cottage 

Way, Sacramento, CA 95825. 

• South Lake Tahoe Library front 

desk, 1000 Rufus Allen Boulevard, 

South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. 

Hard copies can be printed for 

purchase at Staples, 2061 Lake Tahoe 

Boulevard, South Lake Tahoe, CA 

96150. 

CDs are also available upon request 

from State Parks. Please submit request 

to: utproject@parks.ca.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cyndie Walck, State Parks, at 

530–581–0925, or Mike Elam, TRPA, 

and Myrnie Mayville, Reclamation, at 

775–588–4547. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

purpose of the project is to improve 

geomorphic processes, ecological 

functions, and habitat values of the 

Upper Truckee River within the study 

area, helping to reduce the river’s 

discharge of nutrients and sediment that 

diminish Lake Tahoe’s clarity while 

providing access to public recreation 

opportunities in Washoe Meadows State 

Park (SP) and Lake Valley State 

Recreation Area (SRA). 

The 520-acre study area is just north 

of Meyers and south of the City of South 

Lake Tahoe, within El Dorado County, 

California. It includes the southern 

portion of Washoe Meadows SP, Lake 

Valley SRA, and small portions of U.S. 

Forest Service (USFS) and California 

Tahoe Conservancy (Conservancy) 

lands, as well as a 1.5-mile reach of the 

Upper Truckee River. 

The four action alternatives 

(Alternatives 2–5), and the No-Project/ 

No-Action Alternative (Alternative 1) 

are analyzed in the draft EIR/EIS. For 

the No Project/No-Action Alternative, 

Alternative 1, the river restoration and 

changes to the golf course would not be 

implemented. This alternative 

represents a projection of reasonably 

foreseeable future conditions that could 

occur if no project actions were 

implemented. Alternative 2 would 

involve restoration of the Upper 

Truckee River with a reconfigured 18- 

hole regulation golf course. Alternative 

3 would involve river restoration, 

providing a reduced-play golf course. 

Alternative 4 would use a combination 

of hard and soft stabilization to keep the 

river in its present configuration and 

includes only minor changes to the 

existing golf course. Alternative 5 would 

involve decommissioning and removing 

the 18-hole regulation golf course to 

restore all or a portion of the golf course 

landscape to meadow and riparian 

habitat. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 25, 2010 / Notices 52361 

Significant or Adverse Environmental 

Effects Anticipated 

Implementing Alternative 1, the NoProject/No-Action Alternative, would 

not result in any changes within the 

study area and, therefore, not result in 

any significant unavoidable impacts. 

Project-related and cumulative effects 

on modifications in Upper Truckee 

River coarse sediment transport and 

delivery downstream under Alternative 

1 were found to be too speculative for 

meaningful significance conclusions. 

Implementation of Alternative 2 

would require relocation of a portion of 

the Lake Tahoe Golf Course to allow for 

geomorphic restoration of the river, to 

reduce the area of the Stream 

Environment Zone occupied by the golf 

course, and to allow for establishment of 

a riparian habitat zone and buffer area 

between the golf course and the river. 

Implementing Alternative 2 would 

result in the following significant and 

unavoidable project-related and 

cumulative impacts: Short-term risk of 

surface water or groundwater 

degradation during construction and 

short-term risk of surface water or 

groundwater degradation following 

construction. In addition, the 

cumulative effects of Alternative 2 on 

modifications in Upper Truckee River 

coarse sediment transport and delivery 

downstream and operations-related 

green house gas (GHG) emissions were 

found to be too speculative for 

meaningful significance conclusions. 

Alternative 3 would include full 

geomorphic and ecosystem restoration 

of the Upper Truckee River and 

provision of a reduced-play golf course. 

This alternative would result in the 

same significant and unavoidable 

project-related and cumulative impacts 

discussed above for Alternative 2 and 

the same cumulative effects would be 

too speculative for meaningful 

significance conclusions. In addition, 

Alternative 3 would have a significant 

unavoidable impact related to a 

reduction in recreation opportunities, 

uses, and golf- related experiences due 

to the reduced-play golf course. 

Although golfing opportunities would 

still exist under Alternative 3, the 

existing golf experience at the Lake 

Tahoe Golf Course would be 

substantially reduced. Alternative 3 

would also result in an adverse 

economic impact on both the 

community of South Lake Tahoe and 

State Parks. This impact would not 

contribute to a cumulative effect on golf 

recreation. 

Alternative 4 would use a 

combination of hard and soft 

stabilization to keep the river in its 

present configuration and includes only 

minor changes to the existing golf 

course. This alternative would result in 

the same significant and unavoidable 

project-related and cumulative impacts 

and cumulative effects that would be 

too speculative for meaningful 

consideration discussed above for 

Alternative 2. 

Alternative 5 would involve 

decommissioning and removing the 18- 

hole regulation golf course to restore all 

or a portion of the golf course footprint 

to meadow and riparian habitat. This 

alternative would result in the same 

significant and unavoidable projectrelated and cumulative impacts 

discussed above for Alternative 3. 

Alternative 5 would also result in 

cumulative effects on modifications in 

Upper Truckee River coarse sediment 

transport and delivery downstream and 

operation-related GHG emissions that 

were found to be too speculative for 

meaningful consideration. 

Beneficial Effects 

Implementation of Alternative 1 (NoProject/No-Action) would not result in 

any changes within the study area; 

therefore, this alternative would not 

result in any project-related beneficial 

effects. 

Implementing Alternative 2 would 

result in project-related beneficial 

effects on long-term increase in peak 

flows generated or released 

downstream, long-term increase in 

overbanking during small to moderate 

flood events, long-term modification of 

groundwater levels and flow patterns, 

long-term increased surface/soil erosion 

within the study area, fine sediment and 

nutrient retention within the study area, 

long-term changes to fish and aquatic 

habitat, long-term effects on sensitive 

habitats and special-status plant species, 

effects on potential wildlife movement 

corridors, and land coverage changes. 

Alternative 2 would also result in the 

following cumulative beneficial effects: 

Long-term modified groundwater levels 

and flow patterns, long-term stream 

channel erosion, long-term fine 

sediment and nutrient retention, longterm effects on fisheries and aquatic 

resources, effects on special-status 

plants and sensitive habitats, effects on 

common or special-status wildlife 

resources. Implementing Alternative 2 

would assist in the long-term 

productivity of the Lake Tahoe Golf 

Course while restoring the river and 

reducing sediment delivery to the lake, 

which would help to sustain and 

support the social and economic health 

of the South Lake Tahoe area by 

providing an improved 18-hole 

regulation golf course. The golf course 

would support seasonal tourism in the 

South Lake Tahoe area, which would 

provide an economic benefit to the Lake 

Tahoe business community and foster 

employee retention. 

Alternative 3 would result in the same 

project-related and cumulative 

beneficial effects as discussed above for 

Alternative 2 except for long-term 

increased surface/soil erosion within 

the study area. In addition, Alternative 

3 would result in a beneficial effect on 

long-term increase in stormwater runoff 

volumes, long-term reduction of 

irrigation water demand, and long-term 

effects on special-status and common 

wildlife species and habitats. 

Alternative 3 would not include the 

same social and economic benefits 

found under Alternative 2. 

Implementation of Alternative 4 

would result in project-related and 

cumulative beneficial effects on longterm changes to fish and aquatic habitat, 

long-term effects on sensitive habitats 

and special-status plant species, longterm effects on special-status and 

common wildlife species and habitats, 

and potential wildlife movement 

corridors. 

Alternative 5 would result in the same 

project-related and cumulative 

beneficial effects as discussed above for 

Alternative 3. 

The draft EIR/EIS is being distributed 

to interested agencies, stakeholder 

organizations, and individuals. This 

distribution ensures that interested 

parties have an opportunity to express 

their views regarding the environmental 

effects of the project, and to ensure that 

information pertinent to permits and 

approvals is provided to decision 

makers for the lead agencies, CEQA, 

NEPA, and TRPA responsible agencies. 

Hearing Process and Distribution 

Information 

A public hearing on the draft EIR/EIS 

will be conducted by State Parks, 

Reclamation, and TRPA. It is not 

necessary to provide testimony during 

the public hearing; comments on the 

draft EIR/EIS will be accepted 

throughout the meeting and will be 

recorded at the public comment table. 

Comments may also be submitted 

throughout the comment period as 

described above. Once all comments 

have been assembled and reviewed, 

responses will be prepared to address 

significant environmental issues that 

have been raised in the comments. 

Special Assistance for the Public 

Hearing 

If special assistance is required to 

participate in the public hearing, please 

contact Myrnie Mayville at 775–589– 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
52362 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 25, 2010 / Notices 

5240, TDD 916–978–5608, or via e-mail 

at mmayville@usbr.gov. Please notify 

Ms. Mayville as far in advance as 

possible to enable Reclamation to secure 

the needed services. If a request cannot 

be honored, the requestor will be 

notified. A telephone device for the 

hearing impaired (TDD) is available at 

916–978–5608. 

Public Disclosure 

Before including your name, address, 

phone number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in any 

correspondence, you should be aware 

that your entire correspondence— 

including your personal identifying 

information—may be made publicly 

available at any time. While you may 

ask us in your correspondence to 

withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Dated: July 14, 2010. 

Pablo R. Arroyave, 

Deputy Regional Director, Mid-Pacific Region. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21141 Filed 8–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLUTG01100–09–L13100000–EJ0000] 

Notice of Intent To Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement and 

To Conduct Public Scoping for the 

Monument Butte Area Oil and Gas 

Development Project, Duchesne and 

Uintah Counties, UT 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 

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

of the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) of 1969, the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), Vernal Field Office, 

Vernal, Utah, will prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

to study the impacts of various 

development alternatives for oil and 

natural gas resources in the Monument 

Butte Area. This notice announces the 

public scoping period. 

DATES: A 30-day public scoping period 

will commence the date this notice is 

published in the Federal Register. 

Comments on issues, potential impacts, 

or suggestions for alternatives can be 

submitted in writing to the address 

listed below by September 24, 2010. 

Public meetings will be conducted 

during the scoping period in Duchesne 

and Vernal, Utah. The date, place, and 

time will be announced through the 

local news media and the BLM Web site 

http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/vernal/ 

planning.html at least 15 days prior to 

the meetings. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• Mail: Bureau of Land Management, 

Vernal Field Office, 170 South 500 East, 

Vernal, Utah 84078. 

• E-mail: 

UT_Vernal_Comments@blm.gov. 

• Fax: (435) 781–4410. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Wimmer, BLM Project Lead, at 

(435) 781–4400. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document provides notice that the BLM 

Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah, 

intends to prepare an EIS and hold a 

public scoping period. The purpose of 

the public scoping process is to 

determine relevant issues that will 

influence the scope of the 

environmental analysis and EIS 

alternatives. You may submit comments 

in writing to the BLM at the public 

scoping meetings, or you may submit 

them to the BLM using one of the 

methods listed in the ADDRESSES section 

above. The public is encouraged to 

participate during the scoping process 

to help identify issues of concern 

related to the proposed action, 

determine the depth of the analysis 

needed for issues addressed in the EIS, 

identify potential mitigation measures, 

and identify reasonable alternatives to 

be evaluated in the EIS. 

When submitting your comments, 

please reference the Monument Butte 

EIS for BLM’s recordkeeping purposes. 

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. 

The Vernal Field Office’s Approved 

Resource Management Plan, RMP, 

(October 2008) directs the management 

of BLM-administered public lands 

within the analysis area. 

Implementation of oil and gas 

development in the Monument Butte 

Project Area would conform to all 

applicable conditions and requirements 

in the Vernal RMP. 

The project and EIS will encompass 

approximately 119,830 acres in 

Duchesne and Uintah Counties, Utah. 

The project is located on lands 

administered by the BLM (103,912 

acres), the BIA-Uintah and Ouray 

Agency (36 acres), the State of Utah 

(12,866 acres), and private interests 

(3,016 acres). Mineral interests are 

owned by the BLM (89 percent), the 

State of Utah (10 percent), and private 

interests (less than 1 percent). 

The Monument Butte oil and gas field 

has been largely developed. The 

proposed action consists of secondary 

recovery using waterflood methods and 

deep gas drilling. Waterflood methods 

involve the injection of water through 

formerly producing or new wells into 

the oil-producing geologic formation. 

Nearby actively producing wells then 

extract the hydrocarbons through the 

formation as the water displaces the oil. 

In addition to waterflood plans, some 

portions of the project area along the 

northwest and southern project 

boundaries would be subject to step out 

development (expansion away from 

existing development). 

Integral to the project is the phased 

installation of a field electrification 

system in the project area to be 

completed over approximately 7 years. 

Electrical power would then be used to 

run water treatment and injection 

facilities, centralized tank batteries, 

compressor stations, engines and 

turbines at the proposed gas processing 

plant, and at most well site facilities to 

power dehydrators, separators, and 

pump jacks. 

The project includes a total of 5,750 

wells consisting of: 750 vertical oil 

wells (to be converted to injection wells 

for waterflood recovery), 2,500 

directional oil wells, 2,500 vertical deep 

gas wells, 238 miles of new access road, 

361 miles of upgraded road, 599 miles 

of rights-of-way (some collocated with 

roads), 20 new compressor stations, 

expansion of 3 existing compressor 

stations, 8 new and expansion of 6 

existing electric water treatment and 

injection facilities, 12 new and 

expansion of 2 existing centralized tank 

batteries, 1 new 50 MMscf/d (Million 

standard cubic feet per day) centralized 

gas processing plant, 599 miles of 

overhead or buried electrical 

distribution/transmission lines for fieldwide electrification, 1 freshwater 

collector well for waterflood operations, 

and 6 new 200-hp water pump stations. 

The following resources have been 

identified by the Vernal Field Office as 

potentially impacted by the Monument 

Butte Project: Air quality, cultural 

resources, livestock grazing, 

paleontological resources, recreation, 

socioeconomics, soil resources, Pariette 

and Lower Green River Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern, suitable Lower 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES