Final Environment Impact Statement for Reconstruction of the Furnace Creek Water Collection System, Death Valley National Park, Inyo County, CA; Notice of Availability, 38897-38898 [06-6072]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 131 / Monday, July 10, 2006 / Notices
Dated: June 27, 2006.
Leonard E. Stowe,
National Park Service Information and
Collection Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 06–6070 Filed 7–7–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–52–M
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Final Environment Impact Statement
for Reconstruction of the Furnace
Creek Water Collection System, Death
Valley National Park, Inyo County, CA;
Notice of Availability
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969 (Pub. L. 91–190, § 102(2)(c), and
the Council on Environmental Quality
regulations for implementing NEPA (40
CFR 1500–1508), the U.S. Department of
the Interior, National Park Service, and
its cooperating agency have completed
the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) for the proposed
reconstruction of the Furnace Creek
Water Collection System. This water
collection system reconstruction project
is located in the Furnace Creek area of
Death Valley National Park, 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outdated water collection system in the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 FEIS was prepared in
accordance with the National Park
Service NEPA guidelines (Director’s
Order 12).
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Background
The National Park Service (NPS),
Xanterra Parks & 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 provide water for all of the
human use needs in the park
headquarters area. Infrastructure in this
area includes the primary National Park
Service administrative offices, three
NPS campgrounds, two private resort/
visitor services facilities owned and
operated by Xanterra, and 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 specialstatus aquatic invertebrate species—and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:10 Jul 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
a biologically and culturally important
mesquite bosque.
The existing water collection system
was installed in the 1970’s and has been
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.
The park proposed 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. As part of the
redevelopment of the Furnace Creek
water collection system, the proposal
would include restoring historic
wetland and riparian habitat and
providing for the long-term conservation
of species endemic to the Furnace Creek
area.
Proposal and Alternatives
The Draft EIS identified and analyzed
four alternatives for reconstruction of
the Furnace Creek Water Collection
System; these alternatives are not
substantially modified in the FEIS. The
first alternative, the No Action
Alternative, would result in continued
operation and maintenance of the
existing water collection system. This
alternative also composes an
environmental ‘‘baseline’’ from which to
compare the potential effects of other
alternatives considered. Three ‘‘action’’
alternatives would 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 from two 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 from 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 two
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
38897
to three 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. Based
on existing information and as
documented in the EIS, Alternative 3
has been deemed to be the
‘‘environmentally preferable’’
alternative.
Alternative 4 would provide potable
water from Tavertine Springs Lines 2, 3,
and 4 and from 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, Travertine
Springs would not require
reconstruction of spring collection
boxes or clearing and grubbing of
vegetation from the spring water
collection areas. Riparian water would
be released from Travertine Springs
Line 1 and from 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.
Project Planning Background
Public and agency participation has
been incorporated in this conservation
planning and environmental impact
analysis 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 an EIS was published in the
Federal Register on November 20, 2000.
The NPS conducted an extensive public
scoping process for the proposed
reconstruction of the Furnace Creek
Water Collection System that concluded
on March 14, 2001. In addition to the
Federal Register notice, information
about the public scoping process was
provided through local press releases,
Web site postings, direct mailings, and
the Furnace Creek Visitor Center
newsletter.
Three public scoping meetings were
held on January 30 (in Pahrump,
Nevada), January 31 (in Death Valley
National Park), and February 1, 2001 (in
Independence, California). The purpose
of these meetings was to: (1) Provide
participants with an overview of
existing conditions and the proposed
E:\FR\FM\10JYN1.SGM
10JYN1
38898
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 131 / Monday, July 10, 2006 / Notices
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 conservation planning
and environmental impact analysis
process. As a result of the public
scoping process, the NPS received two
letters via U.S. mail and oral comments
at the meetings. Issues identified during
the public scoping process were
summarized in the Draft EIS under the
Planning Issues section, in Chapter I,
Purpose and Need. All comments
received during the public scoping
process were duly considered in
preparing the Draft EIS. In addition to
public scoping, the park and its
cooperating agency have also consulted
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
California State Historic Preservation
Office, and Lahontan Regional Water
Quality Control Board.
The Draft EIS was available for public
review during a 60-day comment period
formally initiated with EPA’s notice of
filing of the document published in the
Federal Register on November 14, 2005.
The comment period concluded
December 12, 2005. The NPS hosted two
public meetings during the public
review period to encourage comments
from the public. The meetings were held
on November 15 (in Death Valley
National Park) and November 16 (in
Pahrump, Nevada). The NPS received 7
comments on the Draft EIS, including 2
comments from unaffiliated individuals
and 5 comments from Federal and State
agencies. All comments and resposnes
are included in the FEIS. Comments
from the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board and the EPA
raised the possibility of additional
alternatives for disposal of the brine
resulting from the reverse osmosis water
treatment process. These techniques are
addressed in the possible disposal
alternatives considered in the FEIS.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Copies
A printed copy of the FEIS may be
obtained by telephoning (760) 786–
3243, e-mailing
(deva_superintendent@nps.gov), or
faxing (760) 786–3283 a request to Death
Valley National Park. The document
also can be viewed via the Internet at
the PEPC Web site https://www.nps.gov/
deva/pphtml/documents.html. For
further information, please contact:
James T. Reynolds, Superintendent,
Death Valley National Park, Death
Valley, California 92328; telephone:
(760) 786–3243.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:10 Jul 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
Decision Process
The National Park Service will
execute a Record of Decision not sooner
than 30 days following publication by
the Environmental Protection Agency of
the notice of filing and availability of
the FEIS. Announcement of the decision
will be noticed in the Federal Register
and via local and regional press media.
As a delegated EIS, the official
responsible for the final decision
regarding the Furnace Creek water
system is the Regional Director, Pacific
West region. Subsequently the official
responsible for implementing the
approved project will be the
Superintendent, Death Valley National
Park.
Dated: April 20, 2006.
Jonathan B. Jarvis,
Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
[FR Doc. 06–6072 Filed 7–7–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–FF–M
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
General Management Plan for Lava
Beds National Monument Siskiyou and
Modoc Counties, California; Notice of
Intent To Prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of
the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (Pub. L. 91–190) and Council on
Environmental Quality’s implementing
regulations (40 CFR 1502.9(c)), the U.S.
Department of Interior, National Park
Service (NPS), is initiating the scoping
phase of the conservation planning and
environmental impact analysis process
for updating the General Management
Plan (GMP) for lava Beds National
Monument (Monument). Following the
scoping phase and consideration of
public concerns and other agency
comments, a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the GMP will be
prepared and released for public review.
The GMP will address desired
conditions for the Monument, uses or
treatment needs for resource protection,
visitor use and other management goals;
it will serve as a ‘‘blueprint’’ to guide
future management for the next 15–20
years. The purpose of the scoping
outreach efforts is to elicit early public
comment regarding issues and concerns,
the nature and extent of potential
environmental impacts (and as
appropriate, mitigation measures), and
alternatives which should be addressed
in the plan update.
Consistent with NPS Planning
Program Standards the updated GMP
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
will: (1) Describe the Monument’s
purpose, significance, and primary
interpretive themes; (2) identify the
fundamental resources and values of the
Monument, its other important
resources and values, and describe the
condition of these resources; (3)
describe desired conditions for cultural
and natural resources and visitor
experiences throughout the Monument;
(4) develop management zoning to
support these desired conditions; (5)
develop alternative applications of these
management zones to the Monument
landscape (i.e., zoning alternatives); (6)
address user capacity; (7) analyze
potential boundary modifications; (8)
ensure that management
recommendations are developed in
consultation with interested
stakeholders and the public and
adopted by NPS leadership after an
adequate analysis of the benefits,
environmental impacts, and economic
costs of alternative courses of action;
and (9) identify and prioritize
subsequent detailed studies, plans and
actions that may be needed to
implement the updated GMP.
Scoping: Through the outreach
activities planned in the scoping phase,
the NPS welcomes information and
suggestions from the public regarding
resource protection, visitor use, and
land management. This notice formally
initiates the public scoping comment
phase for the EIS process for the GMP
update. All scoping comments must be
postmarked or transmitted not later than
September 2, 2006. All written
responses should be submitted to the
following address: General Management
Plan, Lava Beds National Monument,
Attn.: Craig Dorman, Superintendent, 1
Indian Well Headquarters, Tulelake, CA
96134. As noted, a key purpose of the
scoping process is to elicit early public
comment on matters which should be
considered in updating the GMP in
order to inform the development of the
Draft EIS. At this time it is expected that
three public meetings will be hosted in
towns near the Monument during June
5–8, 2006. Detailed information
regarding these meetings will be posted
on the GMP Web site (https://
parkplanning.nps.gov/labe). All
attendees will be given the opportunity
to ask questions and provide comments
to the planning team. The GMP Web site
will provide the most up-to-date
information regarding the project,
including project description, planning
process updates, meeting notices,
reports and documents, and useful links
associated with the project.
It is the practice of the NPS to make
all comments, including names and
addresses of respondents who provide
E:\FR\FM\10JYN1.SGM
10JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 131 (Monday, July 10, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38897-38898]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6072]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Final Environment Impact Statement for Reconstruction of the
Furnace Creek Water Collection System, Death Valley National Park, Inyo
County, CA; Notice of Availability
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, Sec. 102(2)(c), and the Council on Environmental
Quality regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), the U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and its cooperating
agency have completed the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
for the proposed reconstruction of the Furnace Creek Water Collection
System. This water collection system reconstruction project is located
in the Furnace Creek area of Death Valley National Park, 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 FEIS
was prepared in accordance with the National Park Service NEPA
guidelines (Director's Order 12).
Background
The National Park Service (NPS), Xanterra Parks & 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 provide water for all of the human use needs in the park
headquarters area. Infrastructure in this area includes the primary
National Park Service administrative offices, three NPS campgrounds,
two private resort/visitor services facilities owned and operated by
Xanterra, and 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 aquatic invertebrate species--
and a biologically and culturally important mesquite bosque.
The existing water collection system was installed in the 1970's
and has been 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.
The park proposed 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. As part of the redevelopment
of the Furnace Creek water collection system, the proposal would
include restoring historic wetland and riparian habitat and providing
for the long-term conservation of species endemic to the Furnace Creek
area.
Proposal and Alternatives
The Draft EIS identified and analyzed four alternatives for
reconstruction of the Furnace Creek Water Collection System; these
alternatives are not substantially modified in the FEIS. The first
alternative, the No Action Alternative, would result in continued
operation and maintenance of the existing water collection system. This
alternative also composes an environmental ``baseline'' from which to
compare the potential effects of other alternatives considered. Three
``action'' alternatives would 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 from two 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 from 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
two to three 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. Based on existing information and as documented in the
EIS, Alternative 3 has been deemed to be the ``environmentally
preferable'' alternative.
Alternative 4 would provide potable water from Tavertine Springs
Lines 2, 3, and 4 and from 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, Travertine Springs would not require reconstruction of
spring collection boxes or clearing and grubbing of vegetation from the
spring water collection areas. Riparian water would be released from
Travertine Springs Line 1 and from 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.
Project Planning Background
Public and agency participation has been incorporated in this
conservation planning and environmental impact analysis 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 an EIS was published
in the Federal Register on November 20, 2000. The NPS conducted an
extensive public scoping process for the proposed reconstruction of the
Furnace Creek Water Collection System that concluded on March 14, 2001.
In addition to the Federal Register notice, information about the
public scoping process was provided through local press releases, Web
site postings, direct mailings, and the Furnace Creek Visitor Center
newsletter.
Three public scoping meetings were held on January 30 (in Pahrump,
Nevada), January 31 (in Death Valley National Park), and February 1,
2001 (in Independence, California). The purpose of these meetings was
to: (1) Provide participants with an overview of existing conditions
and the proposed
[[Page 38898]]
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 conservation planning and
environmental impact analysis process. As a result of the public
scoping process, the NPS received two letters via U.S. mail and oral
comments at the meetings. Issues identified during the public scoping
process were summarized in the Draft EIS under the Planning Issues
section, in Chapter I, Purpose and Need. All comments received during
the public scoping process were duly considered in preparing the Draft
EIS. In addition to public scoping, the park and its cooperating agency
have also consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, California State Historic Preservation Office, and
Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The Draft EIS was available for public review during a 60-day
comment period formally initiated with EPA's notice of filing of the
document published in the Federal Register on November 14, 2005. The
comment period concluded December 12, 2005. The NPS hosted two public
meetings during the public review period to encourage comments from the
public. The meetings were held on November 15 (in Death Valley National
Park) and November 16 (in Pahrump, Nevada). The NPS received 7 comments
on the Draft EIS, including 2 comments from unaffiliated individuals
and 5 comments from Federal and State agencies. All comments and
resposnes are included in the FEIS. Comments from the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board and the EPA raised the possibility
of additional alternatives for disposal of the brine resulting from the
reverse osmosis water treatment process. These techniques are addressed
in the possible disposal alternatives considered in the FEIS.
Copies
A printed copy of the FEIS may be obtained by telephoning (760)
786-3243, e-mailing (deva_superintendent@nps.gov), or faxing (760)
786-3283 a request to Death Valley National Park. The document also can
be viewed via the Internet at the PEPC Web site https://www.nps.gov/
deva/pphtml/documents.html. For further information, please contact:
James T. Reynolds, Superintendent, Death Valley National Park, Death
Valley, California 92328; telephone: (760) 786-3243.
Decision Process
The National Park Service will execute a Record of Decision not
sooner than 30 days following publication by the Environmental
Protection Agency of the notice of filing and availability of the FEIS.
Announcement of the decision will be noticed in the Federal Register
and via local and regional press media. As a delegated EIS, the
official responsible for the final decision regarding the Furnace Creek
water system is the Regional Director, Pacific West region.
Subsequently the official responsible for implementing the approved
project will be the Superintendent, Death Valley National Park.
Dated: April 20, 2006.
Jonathan B. Jarvis,
Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
[FR Doc. 06-6072 Filed 7-7-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-FF-M
