Draft Environmental Impact Statement; Reconstruction of the Furnace Creek Water Collection System; Death Valley National Park; Inyo County, CA; Notice of Availability, 59370-59372 [05-20423]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
59370
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Notices
regulations (43 CFR part 2) and under
regulations at 30 CFR 250.196, ‘‘Data
and information to be made available to
the public.’’ No items of a sensitive
nature are collected. Responses are
mandatory.
Frequency: Monthly; and as specified
in the NTL.
Estimated Number and Description of
Respondents: Approximately 110
Federal OCS oil and gas lessees.
Estimated Reporting and
Recordkeeping ‘‘Hour’’ Burden: The
approved reporting burdens for the
current collections are 202,320 hours for
1010–0164, and 73,920 hours for 1010–
0163. We expect the new burden hours
to be approximately 26,880 which is an
adjustment decrease of 249,360 burden
hours. This decrease is a result of
number of responses submitted. Even
though there were approximately 1,600
facilities affected by Hurricane Rita, and
1,300 facilities affected by Hurricane
Katrina in the GOM, usually
respondents will submit only one or
Reporting requirement
more reports listing the damage to their
facilities thereby making the number of
responses significantly lower than what
was previously estimated. The following
chart details the individual components
and respective hour burden estimates of
this ICR. In calculating the burdens, we
assumed that respondents perform
certain requirements in the normal
course of their activities. We consider
these to be usual and customary and
took that into account in estimating the
burden.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:48 Oct 11, 2005
Jkt 208001
purchase of service components. You
should describe the methods you use to
estimate major cost factors, including
system and technology acquisition,
expected useful life of capital
equipment, discount rate(s), and the
period over which you incur costs.
Capital and startup costs include,
among other items, computers and
software you purchase to prepare for
collecting information, monitoring, and
record storage facilities. You should not
include estimates for equipment or
services purchased: (i) Before October 1,
1995; (ii) to comply with requirements
not associated with the information
collection; (iii) for reasons other than to
provide information or keep records for
the Government; or (iv) as part of
customary and usual business or private
practices.
We will summarize written responses
to this notice and address them in our
submission for OMB approval. As a
result of your comments, we will make
any necessary adjustments to the burden
in our submission to OMB.
Public Comment Procedure: MMS’s
practice is to make comments, including
names and addresses of respondents,
available for public review. If you wish
your name and/or address to be
withheld, you must state this
prominently at the beginning of your
comment. MMS will honor this request
to the extent allowable by law; however,
anonymous comments will not be
considered. All submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from
individuals identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of
organizations or businesses, will be
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Annual burden
hours
12
12
150
90
1,800
1,080
120
Prepare and submit to MMS (1) list of impacted OCS structures, (2) timetable for inspections,
and (3) inspection plan for each listed platform describing work to determine condition of
structure ...................................................................................................................................
Submit amendments to list and inspection plans. .......................................................................
Submit report to MMS describing detected damage that may adversely affect structural integrity, including assessment of ability to withstand anticipated environmental storm conditions, and any remediation plans .............................................................................................
Estimated Reporting and
Recordkeeping ‘‘Non-Hour Cost’’
Burden: We have identified no cost
burdens for this collection.
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
displays a currently valid OMB control
number. Until OMB approves a
collection of information, you are not
obligated to respond.
Comments: Before submitting an ICR
to OMB, PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A)
requires each agency ’’* * * to provide
notice * * * and otherwise consult
with members of the public and affected
agencies concerning each proposed
collection of information * * *’’.
Agencies must specifically solicit
comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of informtion is
necessary for the agency to perform its
duties, including whether the
information is useful; (b) evaluate the
accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of
information; (c) enhance the quality,
usefulness, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (d)
minimize the burden on the
respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Agencies must also estimate the ‘‘nonhour cost’’ burdens to respondents or
recordkeepers resulting from the
collection of information. Therefore, if
you have costs to generate, maintain,
and disclose this information, you
should comment and provide your total
capital and startup cost components or
annual operation, maintenance, and
Number of responses
200
24,000
Hour burden
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
made available for public inspection in
their entirety.
MMS Information Collection
Clearance Officer: Arlene Bajusz (202)
208–7744.
Dated: October 3, 2005.
E.P. Danenberger,
Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. 05–20435 Filed 10–11–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Draft Environmental Impact Statement;
Reconstruction of the Furnace Creek
Water Collection System; Death Valley
National Park; Inyo County, CA; Notice
of Availability
Summary: Pursuant to § 102(2)(C) of
the National Environmental Policy Act
(Pub. L. 91–190, 42U.S.C. 4321–4347,
January 1, 1970, as amended), and the
Council on Environmental Quality
regulations (40CFR Part 1500–1508), the
U.S. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service and its
cooperating agency have completed a
draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for the proposed reconstruction of
the Furnace Creek water collection
system at Death Valley National Park in
Inyo County, California. The proposed
project would rebuild the outdated
water collection system in the Furnace
Creek area to deliver a safe and reliable
potable and nonpotable water supply to
the park’s main visitor use area. The
draft EIS also describes and analyzes
three alternatives and appropriate
E:\FR\FM\12OCN1.SGM
12OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Notices
mitigation measures, and identifies an
‘‘environmentally preferred’’ alternative.
Background: The National Park
Service (NPS), Xanterra Parks and
Resorts (Xanterra), and the Timbisha
Shoshone Tribe (cooperating agency) are
the primary water user groups in the
Furnace Creek area. The TexasTravertine Springs complex in the
Furnace Creek area may be the most
critical water resource in Death Valley
National Park. This series of springs
provides water for all of the human use
needs in the park headquarters area;
infrastructure in this area includes the
primary NPS administrative offices and
three campgrounds, two private resort/
visitor services facilities owned and
operated by Xanterra, and the offices
and residences for the Timbisha
Shoshone Tribe. The Texas-Travertine
Springs complex also provides water
that supports a riparian area, a
biological community that includes
habitat for a minimum of eight endemic
special-status species, and a biologically
and culturally-important mesquite
bosque.
The current water collection system
consists of four water collection boxes at
Travertine Springs, a collection gallery
in Furnace Creek Wash, a tunnel for
water collection constructed similar to a
mine adit at Texas Springs, and a tunnel
for water collection constructed similar
to a mine adit at the Furnace Creek Inn.
All water distributed by the existing
collection system is potable, although
much of the water is used for irrigation
and other nonpotable purposes. The
existing water collection system
installed in the 1970’s has become
unreliable, subject to failure, and is
nearing the end of its useful life-span.
Many of the existing collection galleries
have intermittently tested positive for
coliform or E. coli bacteria, experienced
unpredictable inputs of soil or organic
matter, intermittently and unpredictably
produced reduced volumes of water,
and collected groundwater that does not
meet state drinking water standards.
When the system was installed
approximately 30 years ago, there was
an incomplete understanding of the
Furnace Creek area’s unique biological
resource values and water conservation
strategies were not a priority.
Proposal and Alternatives: The NPS
proposes to rebuild the antiquated water
collection system in the Furnace Creek
area to deliver safe and reliable drinking
water to the park’s main visitor use area,
and provide separate delivery systems
for potable and nonpotable water.
Desired redevelopment of the Furnace
Creek water collection system includes
efforts to restore historic wetland and
riparian habitat, and ensure the long-
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:48 Oct 11, 2005
Jkt 208001
term conservation of species endemic to
the Furnace Creek area. The draft EIS
identifies and analyzes four alternatives
for reconstructing the Furnace Creek
water collection system.
Alternative 1 (‘‘no action’’) would
result in continued operation and
maintenance of the existing water
collection system. Under this
alternative, the Furnace Creek water
collection system would remain in its
existing condition. Necessary
maintenance and repairs would
continue, but no major undertakings
(e.g., maintenance activities) would
occur. Alternative 1 would provide
potable water from collection galleries
at Travertine Springs Lines 2, 3, and 4,
and Furnace Creek Wash. Nonpotable
water would be provided from the Inn
Tunnel. Riparian water would be
released from Travertine Springs Line 1,
Texas Springs, and the Inn Tunnel.
Alternative 1 would continue to store
water in the existing 2-million gallon
and 500,000 gallon storage tanks.
Potable water would continue to be
disinfected at the 2-million gallon tank
with chlorine.
All three ‘‘action’’ alternatives would
separate the potable and nonpotable
water system in the project area, and
provide nonpotable water from the Inn
Tunnel and a Furnace Creek Wash
collection gallery. These alternatives
primarily differ in terms of how each
would provide potable water to the
Furnace Creek area. Alternative 2 would
provide potable water from rebuilt
collection galleries at Travertine Springs
Line 3 and Line 4, and two to three new
groundwater wells in the Texas Springs
Syncline. Alternative 2 would treat
potable water using a reverse osmosis
water treatment plant. Riparian water
would be released from Travertine
Springs Line 1 and Line 2 and Texas
Springs to restore historic wetland and
riparian habitat. The restoration effort
would include the incorporation of
riparian water release measures that
would reduce erosion and promote
groundwater infiltration.
Alternative 3 (agency preferred)
would provide potable water from 4 to
6 new groundwater wells in the Texas
Springs Syncline, and would treat
potable water using a reverse osmosis
water treatment plant. Riparian water
would be released from all of Travertine
Springs and Texas Springs to restore
historic wetland and riparian habitat.
The restoration effort would include the
incorporation of riparian water release
measures that would reduce erosion and
promote groundwater infiltration.
Alternative 4 would provide potable
water from Travertine Springs Lines 2,
3, and 4 and Texas Springs, and would
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
59371
treat water using a reverse osmosis
water treatment plant with
supplemental water disinfection. Since
the NPS would treat all potable water
under this alternative (including bypass
water), Travertine Springs would not
require reconstruction of spring
collection boxes or clearing and
grubbing of vegetation from the spring
area. Riparian water would be released
from Travertine Springs Line 1 and
Texas Springs to restore historic
wetland and riparian habitat. The
restoration effort would include the
incorporation of riparian water release
measures that would reduce erosion and
promote groundwater infiltration.
The draft EIS identifies and evaluates
a full range of mitigation strategies,
project design elements, and other
measures to minimize environmental
harm. In addition to identifying the
agency-preferred alternative, based on
the environmental impact analysis
detailed in the draft EIS an
‘‘environmentally preferred’’ alternative
is also evaluated.
Scoping: Early public and agency
participation has been incorporated in
this conservation planning process.
Death Valley National Park held public
scoping and informal meetings in 2001
through 2004 to solicit ideas and
concerns from park visitors, park staff,
Native American groups, scientists, and
government agencies. A notice of intent
to prepare the Reconstruction of the
Furnace Creek Water Collection System
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
was published in the Federal Register
on November 20, 2000; the formal
public scoping phase concluded on
March 14, 2001. The public was notified
about the public scoping process
through the Federal Register
announcement, local press releases,
website postings, mailings, and the
Furnace Creek Visitor Center newsletter.
During 2001 the NPS held three
public scoping meetings on January 30
(in Pahrump, Nevada), January 31 (in
Death Valley National Park), and
February 1 (in Independence,
California). The purpose of these
meetings was to: (1) Provide
participants with an overview of
existing conditions and the proposed
action; (2) ask participants to identify
key issues that should be analyzed
during the environmental review and
compliance process; and (3) provide an
opportunity for participants to ask
questions regarding project alternatives
and the overall environmental review
and compliance process. As a result of
the public scoping process, two letters
were received via U.S. mail. Issues
identified during the public scoping
process are summarized in the EIS
E:\FR\FM\12OCN1.SGM
12OCN1
59372
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Notices
under the Planning Issues section, in
Chapter I, Purpose and Need. All
comments received during the public
scoping process have been duly
considered in this EIS. In addition to
public scoping, the park and its
cooperating agency have also consulted
with the Fish and Wildlife Service,
Army Corps of Engineers, California
State Historic Preservation Office, and
Lahontan Regional Water Quality
Control Board.
Comments: The draft EIS is now
available for public review during a 60day comment period. Persons wishing
to express any new concerns about
water management, facilities
development, resource protection, or
other pertinent aspects of the proposal
are encouraged to do so; all responses
should be sent to James T. Reynolds,
Superintendent, Death Valley National
Park, Death Valley, California 92328.
Faxed or electronic comments are also
acceptable (such transmittals may be
sent to the park superintendent’s
attention at
Deva_Superintendent@nps.gov or FAX
(760) 786–3283). Written comments will
also be accepted at NPS public meetings
which are to be held November 15 and
16, 2005 at Pahrump, Nevada, and
Death Valley, California. As soon as
meeting venues are confirmed, details
will be posted on the park’s Web site
and publicized via local and regional
press (and may be obtained by
contacting the park at (769) 786–3243).
All written comments must be
postmarked (or transmitted) no later
than 60 days from the date that the
Environmental Protection Agency posts
its notice of filing in the Federal
Register (immediately upon
confirmation, this date will be
announced on the park’s Web site and
via local and regional press media; this
information will also be available at the
park’s telephone contact at (760) 786–
3243). Please note that names and
addresses of people who comment
become part of the public record. If
individuals commenting request that
their name or\and address be withheld
from public disclosure, it will be
honored to the extent allowable by law.
Such requests must be stated
prominently in the beginning of the
comments. There also may be
circumstances wherein the NPS will
withhold from the record a respondent’s
identity, as allowable by law. As always:
The NPS will make available to public
inspection all submissions from
organizations or businesses and from
persons identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of
organizations and businesses; and,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:48 Oct 11, 2005
Jkt 208001
anonymous comments may not be
considered.
Printed or compact disk copies of the
draft EIS will both be available. Please
specify which document format you
would like to receive when calling, emailing, or faxing Death Valley National
Park. The draft EIS also can be viewed
on the internet at www.nps.gov/deva/
pphtml/documents.html or reviewed at
several public libraries.
Decision Process: Following careful
consideration of all comments as may be
received, a final EIS will be prepared.
Not sooner than 30 days following
release of the final EIS a Record of
Decision would be prepared. At this
time its anticipated that project
construction may begin during winter,
2007. As a delegated EIS the approving
official is the Regional Director, Pacific
West Region of the National Park
Service; subsequently the official
responsible for project implementation
would be the Superintendent, Death
Valley National Park.
Dated: March 1, 2005.
Jonathan B. Jarvis,
Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
Editorial Note: This document was
received at the Office of the Federal Register
October 6, 2005.
[FR Doc. 05–20423 Filed 10–11–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–EF–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Committee for the Preservation of the
White House; Notice of Public Meeting
Department of the Interior,
National Park Service.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given in
accordance with the Federal Advisory
Committee Act that a meeting of the
Committee for the Preservation of the
White House will be held at the White
House at 11 a.m. on Friday, October 28,
2005.
DATES: October 28, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Executive Secretary, Committee for the
Preservation of the White House, 1100
Ohio Drive, SW., Washington, DC
20242. (202) 619–6344.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: It is
expected that the meeting agenda will
include policies, goals, and long range
plans. The meeting will be open, but
subject to appointment and security
clearance requirements. Clearance
information, which includes full name,
date of birth and social security number,
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
must be received by October 21, 2005.
Due to the present mail delays being
experienced, clearance information
should be faxed to (202) 619–6353 in
order to assure receipt by deadline.
Inquiries may be made by calling the
Committee for the Preservation of the
White House between 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
weekdays at (202) 619–6344. Written
comments may be sent to the Executive
Secretary, Committee for the
Preservation of the White House, 1100
Ohio Drive, SW., Washington, DC
20242.
Dated: September 26, 2005.
Ann Bowman Smith,
Executive Secretary, Committee for the
Preservation of the White House.
[FR Doc. 05–20422 Filed 10–11–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–54–M
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[USITC SE–05–032]
Sunshine Act Meeting
United
States International Trade Commission.
TIME AND DATE: October 14, 2005 at 11
a.m.
PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, Telephone:
(202) 205–2000.
STATUS: Open to the public.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1. Agenda for future meetings: None.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Inv. Nos. 731–TA–298 and 299
(Second Review) (Porcelain-on-Steel
Cooking Ware from China and Korea)
and 701–TA–267 and 268 and 731–TA–
304 and 305 (Second Review) Top-ofthe-Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware
from Korea and Taiwan)—briefing and
vote. (The Commission is currently
scheduled to transmit its determination
and Commissioners’ opinions to the
Secretary of Commerce on or before
October 27, 2005.)
5. Outstanding action jackets: None.
In accordance with Commission
policy, subject matter listed above, not
disposed of at the scheduled meeting,
may be carried over to the agenda of the
following meeting.
AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:
Issued: October 6, 2005.
By order of the Commission:
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05–20570 Filed 10–7–05; 3:45 pm]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
E:\FR\FM\12OCN1.SGM
12OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 12, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59370-59372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20423]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Draft Environmental Impact Statement; Reconstruction of the
Furnace Creek Water Collection System; Death Valley National Park; Inyo
County, CA; Notice of Availability
Summary: Pursuant to Sec. 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental
Policy Act (Pub. L. 91-190, 42U.S.C. 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, as
amended), and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40CFR
Part 1500-1508), the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park
Service and its cooperating agency have completed a draft Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed reconstruction of the Furnace
Creek water collection system at Death Valley National Park in Inyo
County, California. The proposed project would rebuild the outdated
water collection system in the Furnace Creek area to deliver a safe and
reliable potable and nonpotable water supply to the park's main visitor
use area. The draft EIS also describes and analyzes three alternatives
and appropriate
[[Page 59371]]
mitigation measures, and identifies an ``environmentally preferred''
alternative.
Background: The National Park Service (NPS), Xanterra Parks and
Resorts (Xanterra), and the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe (cooperating
agency) are the primary water user groups in the Furnace Creek area.
The Texas-Travertine Springs complex in the Furnace Creek area may be
the most critical water resource in Death Valley National Park. This
series of springs provides water for all of the human use needs in the
park headquarters area; infrastructure in this area includes the
primary NPS administrative offices and three campgrounds, two private
resort/visitor services facilities owned and operated by Xanterra, and
the offices and residences for the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe. The Texas-
Travertine Springs complex also provides water that supports a riparian
area, a biological community that includes habitat for a minimum of
eight endemic special-status species, and a biologically and
culturally-important mesquite bosque.
The current water collection system consists of four water
collection boxes at Travertine Springs, a collection gallery in Furnace
Creek Wash, a tunnel for water collection constructed similar to a mine
adit at Texas Springs, and a tunnel for water collection constructed
similar to a mine adit at the Furnace Creek Inn. All water distributed
by the existing collection system is potable, although much of the
water is used for irrigation and other nonpotable purposes. The
existing water collection system installed in the 1970's has become
unreliable, subject to failure, and is nearing the end of its useful
life-span. Many of the existing collection galleries have
intermittently tested positive for coliform or E. coli bacteria,
experienced unpredictable inputs of soil or organic matter,
intermittently and unpredictably produced reduced volumes of water, and
collected groundwater that does not meet state drinking water
standards. When the system was installed approximately 30 years ago,
there was an incomplete understanding of the Furnace Creek area's
unique biological resource values and water conservation strategies
were not a priority.
Proposal and Alternatives: The NPS proposes to rebuild the
antiquated water collection system in the Furnace Creek area to deliver
safe and reliable drinking water to the park's main visitor use area,
and provide separate delivery systems for potable and nonpotable water.
Desired redevelopment of the Furnace Creek water collection system
includes efforts to restore historic wetland and riparian habitat, and
ensure the long-term conservation of species endemic to the Furnace
Creek area. The draft EIS identifies and analyzes four alternatives for
reconstructing the Furnace Creek water collection system.
Alternative 1 (``no action'') would result in continued operation
and maintenance of the existing water collection system. Under this
alternative, the Furnace Creek water collection system would remain in
its existing condition. Necessary maintenance and repairs would
continue, but no major undertakings (e.g., maintenance activities)
would occur. Alternative 1 would provide potable water from collection
galleries at Travertine Springs Lines 2, 3, and 4, and Furnace Creek
Wash. Nonpotable water would be provided from the Inn Tunnel. Riparian
water would be released from Travertine Springs Line 1, Texas Springs,
and the Inn Tunnel. Alternative 1 would continue to store water in the
existing 2-million gallon and 500,000 gallon storage tanks. Potable
water would continue to be disinfected at the 2-million gallon tank
with chlorine.
All three ``action'' alternatives would separate the potable and
nonpotable water system in the project area, and provide nonpotable
water from the Inn Tunnel and a Furnace Creek Wash collection gallery.
These alternatives primarily differ in terms of how each would provide
potable water to the Furnace Creek area. Alternative 2 would provide
potable water from rebuilt collection galleries at Travertine Springs
Line 3 and Line 4, and two to three new groundwater wells in the Texas
Springs Syncline. Alternative 2 would treat potable water using a
reverse osmosis water treatment plant. Riparian water would be released
from Travertine Springs Line 1 and Line 2 and Texas Springs to restore
historic wetland and riparian habitat. The restoration effort would
include the incorporation of riparian water release measures that would
reduce erosion and promote groundwater infiltration.
Alternative 3 (agency preferred) would provide potable water from 4
to 6 new groundwater wells in the Texas Springs Syncline, and would
treat potable water using a reverse osmosis water treatment plant.
Riparian water would be released from all of Travertine Springs and
Texas Springs to restore historic wetland and riparian habitat. The
restoration effort would include the incorporation of riparian water
release measures that would reduce erosion and promote groundwater
infiltration.
Alternative 4 would provide potable water from Travertine Springs
Lines 2, 3, and 4 and Texas Springs, and would treat water using a
reverse osmosis water treatment plant with supplemental water
disinfection. Since the NPS would treat all potable water under this
alternative (including bypass water), Travertine Springs would not
require reconstruction of spring collection boxes or clearing and
grubbing of vegetation from the spring area. Riparian water would be
released from Travertine Springs Line 1 and Texas Springs to restore
historic wetland and riparian habitat. The restoration effort would
include the incorporation of riparian water release measures that would
reduce erosion and promote groundwater infiltration.
The draft EIS identifies and evaluates a full range of mitigation
strategies, project design elements, and other measures to minimize
environmental harm. In addition to identifying the agency-preferred
alternative, based on the environmental impact analysis detailed in the
draft EIS an ``environmentally preferred'' alternative is also
evaluated.
Scoping: Early public and agency participation has been
incorporated in this conservation planning process. Death Valley
National Park held public scoping and informal meetings in 2001 through
2004 to solicit ideas and concerns from park visitors, park staff,
Native American groups, scientists, and government agencies. A notice
of intent to prepare the Reconstruction of the Furnace Creek Water
Collection System Draft Environmental Impact Statement was published in
the Federal Register on November 20, 2000; the formal public scoping
phase concluded on March 14, 2001. The public was notified about the
public scoping process through the Federal Register announcement, local
press releases, website postings, mailings, and the Furnace Creek
Visitor Center newsletter.
During 2001 the NPS held three public scoping meetings on January
30 (in Pahrump, Nevada), January 31 (in Death Valley National Park),
and February 1 (in Independence, California). The purpose of these
meetings was to: (1) Provide participants with an overview of existing
conditions and the proposed action; (2) ask participants to identify
key issues that should be analyzed during the environmental review and
compliance process; and (3) provide an opportunity for participants to
ask questions regarding project alternatives and the overall
environmental review and compliance process. As a result of the public
scoping process, two letters were received via U.S. mail. Issues
identified during the public scoping process are summarized in the EIS
[[Page 59372]]
under the Planning Issues section, in Chapter I, Purpose and Need. All
comments received during the public scoping process have been duly
considered in this EIS. In addition to public scoping, the park and its
cooperating agency have also consulted with the Fish and Wildlife
Service, Army Corps of Engineers, California State Historic
Preservation Office, and Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Comments: The draft EIS is now available for public review during a
60-day comment period. Persons wishing to express any new concerns
about water management, facilities development, resource protection, or
other pertinent aspects of the proposal are encouraged to do so; all
responses should be sent to James T. Reynolds, Superintendent, Death
Valley National Park, Death Valley, California 92328. Faxed or
electronic comments are also acceptable (such transmittals may be sent
to the park superintendent's attention at Deva--Superintendent@nps.gov
or FAX (760) 786-3283). Written comments will also be accepted at NPS
public meetings which are to be held November 15 and 16, 2005 at
Pahrump, Nevada, and Death Valley, California. As soon as meeting
venues are confirmed, details will be posted on the park's Web site and
publicized via local and regional press (and may be obtained by
contacting the park at (769) 786-3243).
All written comments must be postmarked (or transmitted) no later
than 60 days from the date that the Environmental Protection Agency
posts its notice of filing in the Federal Register (immediately upon
confirmation, this date will be announced on the park's Web site and
via local and regional press media; this information will also be
available at the park's telephone contact at (760) 786-3243). Please
note that names and addresses of people who comment become part of the
public record. If individuals commenting request that their name
or[bs]and address be withheld from public disclosure,
it will be honored to the extent allowable by law. Such requests must
be stated prominently in the beginning of the comments. There also may
be circumstances wherein the NPS will withhold from the record a
respondent's identity, as allowable by law. As always: The NPS will
make available to public inspection all submissions from organizations
or businesses and from persons identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of organizations and businesses; and,
anonymous comments may not be considered.
Printed or compact disk copies of the draft EIS will both be
available. Please specify which document format you would like to
receive when calling, e-mailing, or faxing Death Valley National Park.
The draft EIS also can be viewed on the internet at www.nps.gov/deva/
pphtml/documents.html or reviewed at several public libraries.
Decision Process: Following careful consideration of all comments
as may be received, a final EIS will be prepared. Not sooner than 30
days following release of the final EIS a Record of Decision would be
prepared. At this time its anticipated that project construction may
begin during winter, 2007. As a delegated EIS the approving official is
the Regional Director, Pacific West Region of the National Park
Service; subsequently the official responsible for project
implementation would be the Superintendent, Death Valley National Park.
Dated: March 1, 2005.
Jonathan B. Jarvis,
Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the
Federal Register October 6, 2005.
[FR Doc. 05-20423 Filed 10-11-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-EF-P
