Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Fort King Special Resource Study, 70096-70097 [05-22946]

Download as PDF 70096 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 223 / Monday, November 21, 2005 / Notices a sensitive nature are collected. The requirement to respond is voluntary. Frequency of Response: Annually. Estimated Number and Description of Respondents: 125 Federal and Indian oil and gas and solid mineral royalty payors. Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping ‘‘Hour’’ Burden: 32 hours. We estimate that each response will take 15 minutes. Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping ‘‘Non-hour Cost’’ Burden: We have identified no ‘‘nonhour cost’’ burden associated with the collection of information. Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 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 information 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. The PRA also requires agencies to estimate the total annual reporting ‘‘non-hour cost’’ burden to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. 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 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, sampling, and testing equipment; and record storage facilities. Generally, your estimates should not include equipment VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:51 Nov 18, 2005 Jkt 208001 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 ICR submission for OMB approval, including appropriate adjustments to the estimated burden. We will provide a copy of the ICR to you without charge upon request. The ICR also will be posted on our Web site at https:// www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/ FRNotices/FRInfColl.htm. Public Comment Policy: We will post all comments in response to this notice on our Web site at https:// www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/ FRNotices/FRInfColl.htm. We also will make copies of the comments available for public review, including names and addresses of respondents, during regular business hours at our offices in Lakewood, Colorado. Upon request, we will withhold an individual respondent’s home address from the public record, as allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold a respondent’s identity, as allowable by law. If you request that we withhold your name and/or address, state your request prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. MMS Information Collection Clearance Officer: Arlene Bajusz, (202) 208–7744. Cathy J. Hamilton, Acting Associate Director for Minerals Revenue Management. [FR Doc. 05–22954 Filed 11–18–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Fort King Special Resource Study SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the National Park Service (NPS) announces the availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Fort King Special PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Resource Study. The document describes ways that the NPS may assist in preserving the Fort King site by outlining four management alternatives for consideration by Congress, including a no-action alternative. The DEIS analyzes the environmental impacts of those alternatives considered for the future protection, interpretation, and management of the site’s cultural resources. The 37-acre study area is located in the city of Ocala, Marion County, Florida. DATES: There will be a 60-day comment period beginning with the Environmental Protection Agency’s publication of its notice of availability in the Federal Register. ADDRESSES: Copies of the DEIS are available by contacting Tim Bemisderfer, Planning and Compliance Division, Southeast Region, National Park Service, 100 Alabama Street, SW., 1924 Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. An electronic copy of the DEIS is available on the Internet at https:// www.nps.gov/sero/planning. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Bemisderfer, 404–562–3124, extension 693. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NPS held a series of community and stakeholder meetings in 2002 and 2003 to gather advice and feedback on desired outcomes of the study. The meetings assisted the NPS in developing alternatives for managing associated cultural and natural resources and creating interpretive and educational programs. Responses from the meetings were incorporated into the four alternatives described in the study. Alternative A is the no-action alternative. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that the Fort King site would continue to be owned and managed cooperatively by the city of Ocala, Marion County, and the Ocala Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution. The site would remain predominantly undeveloped, public access would be restricted, and the site’s archaeological resources would be protected and preserved in an undisturbed condition. Under Alternative B, the site’s archaeological resources would be preserved and interpreted in-situ. Alternative B, takes a conservative approach to site development that favors a simple and low cost implementation strategy. Under Alternative C, existing site infrastructure would be used as a base to quickly and efficiently provide public access and interpretive services. Alternative C favors a development strategy that builds upon a modest initial investment that can be expanded E:\FR\FM\21NON1.SGM 21NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 223 / Monday, November 21, 2005 / Notices over time as additional funding and resources are secured. Under Alternative D, Fort King would highlight the site’s strong association with nationally significant historical events and interpretive themes. Alternative D takes an aggressive approach to site development. Its larger initial investment in cultural landscape rehabilitation and visitor service infrastructure is intended to quickly establish the name recognition and credibility necessary to attract higher profile partners and compete for private and public financing. It is the practice of the NPS to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Anonymous comments will not be considered. We will make submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. However, individual respondents may request that we withhold their names and addresses from the public record, and we will honor such requests to the extent allowed by law. If you wish to withhold your name/address, you must state that request prominently at the beginning of your comment. The responsible official for the DEIS is Patricia A. Hooks, Regional Director, Southeast Region, National Park Service, 100 Alabama Street, SW., 1924 Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Dated: October 11, 2005. Patricia A. Hooks, Regional Director, Southeast Region. [FR Doc. 05–22946 Filed 11–18–05; 8:45 am] alternative, and public involvement in the decision-making process. The ROD was approved by the Southeast Regional Director on August 30, 2005. The CMP/ EIS provides a framework for the management, use, and development of the National Historic Trail by the NPS and its partners over the next 15 to 20 years. Beginning at Brown Chapel AME Church in Selma, Alabama, the trail follows the route of the March 1965 Selma to Montgomery voting rights march, traveling through Lowndes County along U.S. Highway 80, and ending at the Alabama State Capitol in Montgomery. The CMP/EIS describes four management alternatives for consideration and analyzes the environmental impacts of those alternatives. As soon as practicable, the NPS will begin to implement the plan and the preferred alternative, known as Alternative C. Of the four alternatives presented in the plan, Alternative C stresses the broadest range of interpretive themes relating to the events of March 1965 and provides an extensive plan for resource preservation, protection, and commemoration. Among its priorities is the coordinated protection of historically intact viewsheds along US Highway 80, the most extensive certification of commemorative sites and streetscapes, design proposals for new park spaces, and marked walking and biking rails. Alternative C also outlines a strategy for establishing interpretive centers and development of corresponding interpretive programs in Selma, Montgomery, and Lowndes County. The ROD was signed by the Southeast Regional Director on August 30, 2005. DATES: BILLING CODE 4312–52–M Copies of the ROD are available by contacting John Barrett, National Park Service, 100 Alabama St., SW., Atlanta, GA 30303. An electronic copy of the ROD is available on the Internet at https://www.nps.gov/sero/ planning/semo_cmp/ semo_cmpdraft.htm. ADDRESSES: DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Notice of Availability of a Record of Decision for the Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail Comprehensive Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the National Park Service (NPS) announces the availability of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail Comprehensive Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (CMP/EIS). The ROD provides the background of the CMP/EIS, other alternatives considered, the basis for the decision, the environmentally preferable VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:51 Nov 18, 2005 Jkt 208001 John Barrett, 404–562–3124, extension 637. The responsible official for the ROD and the CMP/EIS is Patricia A. Hooks, Regional Director, Southeast Region, National Park Service, 100 Alabama Street SW., 1924 Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Boston Harbor Islands Advisory Council; Notice of Meeting Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (PL 92–463) that the Boston Harbor Islands Advisory Council will meet on Wednesday, December 7, 2005. The meeting will convene at 4 p.m. at the Boston Children’s Museum, 300 Congress Street, Dewey Room, Boston, MA. The Advisory Council was appointed by the Director of National Park Service pursuant to Public Law 104–333. The 28 members represent business, educational/cultural, community and environmental entities; municipalities surrounding Boston Harbor; Boston Harbor advocates; and Native American interests. The purpose of the Council is to advise and make recommendations to the Boston Harbor Islands Partnership with respect to the development and implementation of a management plan and the operations of the Boston Harbor Islands national park area. The Agenda for this meeting is as follows: 1. Call to Order, Introductions of Advisory Council members present 2. Review and approval of minutes of the September meeting 3. Analysis of 5-year Strategic Plan 4. Preparation for the March Elections 5. Park Update • Summer Review • Outer Brewster 1. New Business 2. Public Comment 3. Adjourn The meeting is open to the public. Further information concerning Council meetings may be obtained from the Superintendent, Boston Harbor Islands. Interested persons may make oral/written presentations to the Council or file written statements. Such requests should be made at least seven days prior to the meeting to: Superintendent, Boston Harbor Islands NRA, 408 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, MA, 02110, telephone (617) 223–8669. Dated: October 11, 2005. Bruce Jacobson, Superintendent, Boston Harbor Islands NRA. [FR Doc. 05–22945 Filed 11–18–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312–52–P Dated: September 21, 2005. Patricia A. Hooks, Regional Director, Southeast Region. [FR Doc. 05–22947 Filed 11–18–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–52–M PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 70097 E:\FR\FM\21NON1.SGM 21NON1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 223 (Monday, November 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70096-70097]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22946]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
for the Fort King Special Resource Study

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969, the National Park Service (NPS) announces the 
availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the 
Fort King Special Resource Study. The document describes ways that the 
NPS may assist in preserving the Fort King site by outlining four 
management alternatives for consideration by Congress, including a no-
action alternative. The DEIS analyzes the environmental impacts of 
those alternatives considered for the future protection, 
interpretation, and management of the site's cultural resources. The 
37-acre study area is located in the city of Ocala, Marion County, 
Florida.

DATES: There will be a 60-day comment period beginning with the 
Environmental Protection Agency's publication of its notice of 
availability in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the DEIS are available by contacting Tim 
Bemisderfer, Planning and Compliance Division, Southeast Region, 
National Park Service, 100 Alabama Street, SW., 1924 Building, Atlanta, 
Georgia 30303. An electronic copy of the DEIS is available on the 
Internet at https://www.nps.gov/sero/planning.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Bemisderfer, 404-562-3124, 
extension 693.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NPS held a series of community and 
stakeholder meetings in 2002 and 2003 to gather advice and feedback on 
desired outcomes of the study. The meetings assisted the NPS in 
developing alternatives for managing associated cultural and natural 
resources and creating interpretive and educational programs. Responses 
from the meetings were incorporated into the four alternatives 
described in the study. Alternative A is the no-action alternative. For 
the purposes of this study, it is assumed that the Fort King site would 
continue to be owned and managed cooperatively by the city of Ocala, 
Marion County, and the Ocala Chapter of the Daughters of the American 
Revolution. The site would remain predominantly undeveloped, public 
access would be restricted, and the site's archaeological resources 
would be protected and preserved in an undisturbed condition. Under 
Alternative B, the site's archaeological resources would be preserved 
and interpreted in-situ. Alternative B, takes a conservative approach 
to site development that favors a simple and low cost implementation 
strategy. Under Alternative C, existing site infrastructure would be 
used as a base to quickly and efficiently provide public access and 
interpretive services. Alternative C favors a development strategy that 
builds upon a modest initial investment that can be expanded

[[Page 70097]]

over time as additional funding and resources are secured.
    Under Alternative D, Fort King would highlight the site's strong 
association with nationally significant historical events and 
interpretive themes. Alternative D takes an aggressive approach to site 
development. Its larger initial investment in cultural landscape 
rehabilitation and visitor service infrastructure is intended to 
quickly establish the name recognition and credibility necessary to 
attract higher profile partners and compete for private and public 
financing.
    It is the practice of the NPS to make comments, including names and 
home addresses of respondents, available for public review during 
regular business hours. Anonymous comments will not be considered. We 
will make submissions from organizations or businesses, and from 
individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of 
organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their 
entirety. However, individual respondents may request that we withhold 
their names and addresses from the public record, and we will honor 
such requests to the extent allowed by law. If you wish to withhold 
your name/address, you must state that request prominently at the 
beginning of your comment.
    The responsible official for the DEIS is Patricia A. Hooks, 
Regional Director, Southeast Region, National Park Service, 100 Alabama 
Street, SW., 1924 Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

    Dated: October 11, 2005.
Patricia A. Hooks,
Regional Director, Southeast Region.
[FR Doc. 05-22946 Filed 11-18-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-52-M

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.