Draft Environmental Impact Statement/General Management Plan; Olympic National Park; Clallam County, WA, 40149-40150 [06-6224]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 135 / Friday, July 14, 2006 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[MT–922–06–1310–FI–P; MTM 93185, MTM
93188]
Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of
Terminated Oil and Gas Leases MTM
93185 and MTM 93188
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Per 30 U.S.C. 188(d), Coastal
Petroleum Company timely filed
petitions for reinstatement of oil and gas
leases MTM 93185 and MTM 93188,
Valley County, Montana. The lessee
paid the required rentals accruing from
the date of termination.
No leases were issued that affect these
lands. The lessee agrees to new lease
terms for rentals and royalties of $5 per
acre and 162⁄3 percent or 4 percentages
above the existing competitive royalty
rate. The lessee paid the $500
administration fee for the reinstatement
of each lease and $163 cost for
publishing this Notice.
The lessee met the requirements for
reinstatement of the leases per Sec. 31
(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of
1920 (30 U.S.C. 188). We are proposing
to reinstate the leases, effective the date
of termination subject to:
• The original terms and conditions
of the leases;
• The increased rental of $5 per acre
for each lease;
• The increased royalty of 162⁄3
percent or 4 percentages above the
existing competitive royalty rate for
each lease; and
• The $163 cost of publishing this
Notice
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karen L. Johnson, Chief, Fluids
Adjudication Section, BLM Montana
State Office, 5001 Southgate Drive,
Billings, Montana 59101–4669, 406–
896–5098.
Dated: July 6, 2006.
Karen L. Johnson,
Chief, Fluids Adjudication section.
[FR Doc. E6–11074 Filed 7–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–$$–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
National Park Service
Draft Environmental Impact Statement/
General Management Plan; Olympic
National Park; Clallam County, WA
Summary: Pursuant to section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:44 Jul 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)
and the Council of Environmental
Quality implementing regulations (40
CFR parts 1500–08), the National Park
Service announces the availability of the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement/
General Management Plan (Draft EIS/
GMP) for Olympic National Park. The
purpose of the Draft EIS/GMP is to set
forth the basic management philosophy
for the park, to define resource
conditions, wilderness objectives, and
visitor experiences to be achieved
within the park, and to provide the
framework for addressing issues and
achieving identified management
objectives for the next 15 to 20 years. In
addition to a ‘‘no-action’’ alternative
(which would maintain current
management), the Draft EIS/GMP
describes and analyzes three ‘‘action’’
alternatives that respond to public
concerns and issues identified during
the scoping process, as well as NPS’s
conservation planning requirements.
These alternatives present varying
management strategies that address
visitor use and the preservation of
cultural and natural resources within
the park. The potential environmental
consequences of each alternative, and
mitigation strategies, are identified and
analyzed.
Scoping Background: A Notice of
Intent announcing the preparation of the
Draft EIS/GMP was published in the
Federal Register on June 4, 2001. Public
engagement has included public
meetings, newsletter mailings, local
press releases, and website postings. In
June 2001 a scoping newsletter was
distributed to approximately 800 people
on the park’s mailing list. In addition,
during September and October 2001,
public scoping meetings were held in
several locations around the Olympic
Peninsula and in Seattle and Silverdale,
Washington. Hundreds of comments
were received during the scoping
process. In January 2002, a newsletter
was distributed to summarize the
planning issue and concerns brought
forward during scoping, and to
announce five workshops that were held
in the area in late January to seek public
assistance in developing alternatives.
This was followed by the releases of a
preliminary alternatives newsletter
(distributed in May 2003) and a park
update newsletter (distributed
November 2004) to the project mailing
list, which had reached approximately
1,200 individuals, agencies, and
organizations.
Proposed Plan and Alternatives: The
Draft EIS/GMP describes and analyzes
the environmental impacts of the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative and three ‘‘action’’
alternatives. The Draft EIS/GMP also
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
40149
includes alternative maps which
include specific information for each
front country area of the park, and
identifies the ‘‘environmentally
preferred’’ alternative (Alternative D)
Alternative A constitutes the noaction alternative and serves as an
environmental baseline to facilitate
comparisons between ‘‘action’’
alternatives. This alternative assumes
that existing programs, faculties,
staffing, and funding would generally
continue at their current levels, and
current management practices would
continue.
Alternative B emphasizes cultural and
natural resource protection, and natural
processes would have priority over
visitor access in certain areas of the
park. In general, the park would be
managed as a large ecosystem preserve
emphasizing wilderness management
for resource conservation and
protection, with a reduced number of
faculties to support visitation. Some
roads and faculties would be moved or
closed to protect natural processes, and
visitor access and services in sensitive
areas would be reduced.
Alternative C emphasizes increased
recreational and visitor opportunities.
The natural and cultural resources
would be protected through
management actions and resource
education programs. However,
maintaining access to existing faculties
would be a priority, and access would
be retained to all existing front country
areas, and increased by improving park
roads to extend the season of use. New
or expanded interpretation and
educational faculties would be
constructed.
Alternative D is the park’s preferred
alternative. It was developed using
components of the other alternatives,
emphasizing both the protection of park
resources and improving visitor
experiences. Management activities
would use methods to minimize adverse
effects on park resources to the extent
possible. Access would be maintained
to existing front country areas, but roads
might be modified or relocated for
resource protection and/or to maintain
vehicular access. Visitor education and
interpretative faculties would be
improved or developed to improve
visitor opportunities. The preferred
alternative also proposes three boundary
adjustments, which includes a land
exchange with the U.S. Forest Service
and partnering with Washington
Department of Natural Resources, and
acquiring private land by willing seller
only.
Public Review and Comment: The
Draft EIS/GMP is now available for
public review. The document can be
E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM
14JYN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
40150
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 135 / Friday, July 14, 2006 / Notices
found on the Internet on the NPS
Planning, Environment and Public
Comment (PEPC) System Web site at
https://parkplanning.nps.gov/public.
Paper and electronic copies on CD–
ROM are also available by request.
Interested persons and organizations
can obtain a copy by writing to Olympic
National Park, c/o William G. Laitner,
Superintendent, 600 East Park Avenue,
Port Angeles, WA 98362, by telephoning
360–565–3004, or by e-mail to
olym_gmp@nps.gov. The document is
also available to be picked up in person
during normal business hours at the
headquarters of Olympic National Park,
600 East Park Avenue, Port Angeles,
WA 98362, and at the Olympic National
Park and Olympic National Forest
Information Station in Forks, WA. In
addition, the document may be
reviewed at branches of the North
Olympic Library System, Timberland
Regional Libraries, Jefferson County
Libraries, and area college and
university libraries.
All written comments must be
postmarked or transmitted not later than
September 15, 2006. All comments will
become part of the public record.
Persons wishing to comment may do so
by one of several ways. Responses are
encouraged online using the electronic
comment form at the NPS PEPC Web
site (https://parkplanning.nps.gov). In
addition, written comments can be
mailed or faxed to Olympic National
Park GMP, National Park Service,
Denver Service Center, P.O. Box 25287,
Denver, Colorado 80225 (fax: 303–969–
2736). Comments may also be hand
delivered during normal business hours
to the headquarters of Olympic National
Park at 600 East Park Avenue, Port
Angeles, WA 98362 or may be
transmitted to the park by e-mail to
olym_gmp@nps.gov. In addition, oral
and written comments may be offered at
one of several public open houses to be
conducted in August 2006. Confirmed
details on dates, locations, and times for
these open houses will be announced in
local newspapers, on the park’s Web site
(https://www.nps.gov/olym), or may be
obtained by telephone at (360) 565–
3130.
Regardless of how written comments
are submitted, please note that names
and addresses of all respondents will
become part of the public record. It is
the practice of the NPS to make all
comments, including names and
addresses of respondents who provide
that information, available for public
review following the conclusion of the
NEPA process. Individuals may request
that the NPS withhold their name and/
or address from public disclosure. If you
wish to do so, you must state this
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:44 Jul 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
prominently at the beginning of your
letter or written response. For those
commentators who wish to use the
PEPC Web site, such a request can be
made by checking the box ‘‘keep my
contact information private’’. NPS will
honor all such requests to the extent
allowable by law, but you should be
aware that NPS may still be required to
disclose your name and address
pursuant to the Freedom of Information
Act.
Decision Process: Following the
release of the Draft EIS/GMP, all public
and agency comments received will be
carefully considered in preparing the
final document. The final plan and EIS
is anticipated to be completed during
winter 2006–07 and its availability will
be similarly announced in the Federal
Register and via local and regional press
media. Not sooner than 30 days
following the release of the Final EIS/
GMP a Record of Decision would be
prepared.
Completion of the Final EIS/GMP
does not guarantee funds and staff for
implementing the approved plan. The
NPS recognizes that this is along-term
plan, and, in the framework of the plan,
park managers would take incremental
steps to reach park management goals
and objectives. While some of the
actions can be accomplished with little
or no funding, some actions would
require more detailed implementation
plans, site specific environmental
analysis and/or cultural compliance,
and additional funds. The park would
actively seek alternative sources of
funding, but there is no guarantee that
all the components of the plan would be
implemented.
As a delegated EIS, the official
responsible for the final decision is the
Regional Director, Pacific West Region;
subsequently the official with
responsibility for implementing the
approved plan would be the
Superintendent, Olympic National Park.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given in
accordance with the Federal Advisory
Commission Act that a meeting of the
Jimmy Carter National Historic Site
Advisory Commission will be held at
8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the following
location and date.
DATES: July 11, 2006.
ADDRESSES: The Carter Library, 453
Freedom Parkway, Atlanta, Georgia
30307.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
purpose of the Jimmy Carter National
Historic Site Advisory Commission is to
advise the Secretary of the Interior or
their designee on achieving balanced
and accurate interpretation of the Jimmy
Carter National Historic Site. The
members of the Advisory Commission
are as follows: Dr. James Sterling Young,
Dr. Barbara J. Fields, Dr. Donald B.
Schewe, Dr. Steven H. Hochman, Dr. Jay
Hakes, Director, National Park Service,
Ex-Officio member.
The matters to be discussed at this
meeting include the status of park
development and planning activities.
This meeting will be open to the public.
However, facilities and space for
accommodating members of the public
are limited. Any member of the public
may file with the commission a written
statement concerning the matters to be
discussed. Written statements may also
be submitted to the Superintendent at
the address below. Minutes of the
meeting will be available at Park
Headquarters for public inspection
approximately 4 weeks after the
meeting.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lizzie Watts, Superintendent, Jimmy
Carter National Historic Site, 300 North
Bond Street, Plains, Georgia 31780, 229–
824–4104, extension 23.
Dated: April 11, 2006.
Cicely A. Muldoon,
Acting Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
BILLING CODE 4312–74–P
Editorial Note: This document was
received at the Office of the Federal Register
on July 11, 2006.
[FR Doc. 06–6224 Filed 7–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–KJ–M
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Notice of Advisory Commission
Meeting
AGENCY:
PO 00000
National Park Service, Interior.
Frm 00090
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dated: May 30, 2006.
Patricia A. Hooks,
Regional Director, Southeast Region.
[FR Doc. E6–11098 Filed 7–13–06; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places;
Notification of Pending Nominations
and Related Actions
Nominations for the following
properties being considered for listing
or related actions in the National
Register were received by the National
Park Service before July 1, 2006.
Pursuant to § 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60
written comments concerning the
significance of these properties under
E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM
14JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 135 (Friday, July 14, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40149-40150]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6224]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Draft Environmental Impact Statement/General Management Plan;
Olympic National Park; Clallam County, WA
Summary: Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C) and the Council
of Environmental Quality implementing regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-
08), the National Park Service announces the availability of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement/General Management Plan (Draft EIS/GMP)
for Olympic National Park. The purpose of the Draft EIS/GMP is to set
forth the basic management philosophy for the park, to define resource
conditions, wilderness objectives, and visitor experiences to be
achieved within the park, and to provide the framework for addressing
issues and achieving identified management objectives for the next 15
to 20 years. In addition to a ``no-action'' alternative (which would
maintain current management), the Draft EIS/GMP describes and analyzes
three ``action'' alternatives that respond to public concerns and
issues identified during the scoping process, as well as NPS's
conservation planning requirements. These alternatives present varying
management strategies that address visitor use and the preservation of
cultural and natural resources within the park. The potential
environmental consequences of each alternative, and mitigation
strategies, are identified and analyzed.
Scoping Background: A Notice of Intent announcing the preparation
of the Draft EIS/GMP was published in the Federal Register on June 4,
2001. Public engagement has included public meetings, newsletter
mailings, local press releases, and website postings. In June 2001 a
scoping newsletter was distributed to approximately 800 people on the
park's mailing list. In addition, during September and October 2001,
public scoping meetings were held in several locations around the
Olympic Peninsula and in Seattle and Silverdale, Washington. Hundreds
of comments were received during the scoping process. In January 2002,
a newsletter was distributed to summarize the planning issue and
concerns brought forward during scoping, and to announce five workshops
that were held in the area in late January to seek public assistance in
developing alternatives. This was followed by the releases of a
preliminary alternatives newsletter (distributed in May 2003) and a
park update newsletter (distributed November 2004) to the project
mailing list, which had reached approximately 1,200 individuals,
agencies, and organizations.
Proposed Plan and Alternatives: The Draft EIS/GMP describes and
analyzes the environmental impacts of the ``no-action'' alternative and
three ``action'' alternatives. The Draft EIS/GMP also includes
alternative maps which include specific information for each front
country area of the park, and identifies the ``environmentally
preferred'' alternative (Alternative D)
Alternative A constitutes the no-action alternative and serves as
an environmental baseline to facilitate comparisons between ``action''
alternatives. This alternative assumes that existing programs,
faculties, staffing, and funding would generally continue at their
current levels, and current management practices would continue.
Alternative B emphasizes cultural and natural resource protection,
and natural processes would have priority over visitor access in
certain areas of the park. In general, the park would be managed as a
large ecosystem preserve emphasizing wilderness management for resource
conservation and protection, with a reduced number of faculties to
support visitation. Some roads and faculties would be moved or closed
to protect natural processes, and visitor access and services in
sensitive areas would be reduced.
Alternative C emphasizes increased recreational and visitor
opportunities. The natural and cultural resources would be protected
through management actions and resource education programs. However,
maintaining access to existing faculties would be a priority, and
access would be retained to all existing front country areas, and
increased by improving park roads to extend the season of use. New or
expanded interpretation and educational faculties would be constructed.
Alternative D is the park's preferred alternative. It was developed
using components of the other alternatives, emphasizing both the
protection of park resources and improving visitor experiences.
Management activities would use methods to minimize adverse effects on
park resources to the extent possible. Access would be maintained to
existing front country areas, but roads might be modified or relocated
for resource protection and/or to maintain vehicular access. Visitor
education and interpretative faculties would be improved or developed
to improve visitor opportunities. The preferred alternative also
proposes three boundary adjustments, which includes a land exchange
with the U.S. Forest Service and partnering with Washington Department
of Natural Resources, and acquiring private land by willing seller
only.
Public Review and Comment: The Draft EIS/GMP is now available for
public review. The document can be
[[Page 40150]]
found on the Internet on the NPS Planning, Environment and Public
Comment (PEPC) System Web site at https://parkplanning.nps.gov/public.
Paper and electronic copies on CD-ROM are also available by request.
Interested persons and organizations can obtain a copy by writing to
Olympic National Park, c/o William G. Laitner, Superintendent, 600 East
Park Avenue, Port Angeles, WA 98362, by telephoning 360-565-3004, or by
e-mail to olym_gmp@nps.gov. The document is also available to be
picked up in person during normal business hours at the headquarters of
Olympic National Park, 600 East Park Avenue, Port Angeles, WA 98362,
and at the Olympic National Park and Olympic National Forest
Information Station in Forks, WA. In addition, the document may be
reviewed at branches of the North Olympic Library System, Timberland
Regional Libraries, Jefferson County Libraries, and area college and
university libraries.
All written comments must be postmarked or transmitted not later
than September 15, 2006. All comments will become part of the public
record. Persons wishing to comment may do so by one of several ways.
Responses are encouraged online using the electronic comment form at
the NPS PEPC Web site (https://parkplanning.nps.gov). In addition,
written comments can be mailed or faxed to Olympic National Park GMP,
National Park Service, Denver Service Center, P.O. Box 25287, Denver,
Colorado 80225 (fax: 303-969-2736). Comments may also be hand delivered
during normal business hours to the headquarters of Olympic National
Park at 600 East Park Avenue, Port Angeles, WA 98362 or may be
transmitted to the park by e-mail to olym_gmp@nps.gov. In addition,
oral and written comments may be offered at one of several public open
houses to be conducted in August 2006. Confirmed details on dates,
locations, and times for these open houses will be announced in local
newspapers, on the park's Web site (https://www.nps.gov/olym), or may be
obtained by telephone at (360) 565-3130.
Regardless of how written comments are submitted, please note that
names and addresses of all respondents will become part of the public
record. It is the practice of the NPS to make all comments, including
names and addresses of respondents who provide that information,
available for public review following the conclusion of the NEPA
process. Individuals may request that the NPS withhold their name and/
or address from public disclosure. If you wish to do so, you must state
this prominently at the beginning of your letter or written response.
For those commentators who wish to use the PEPC Web site, such a
request can be made by checking the box ``keep my contact information
private''. NPS will honor all such requests to the extent allowable by
law, but you should be aware that NPS may still be required to disclose
your name and address pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.
Decision Process: Following the release of the Draft EIS/GMP, all
public and agency comments received will be carefully considered in
preparing the final document. The final plan and EIS is anticipated to
be completed during winter 2006-07 and its availability will be
similarly announced in the Federal Register and via local and regional
press media. Not sooner than 30 days following the release of the Final
EIS/GMP a Record of Decision would be prepared.
Completion of the Final EIS/GMP does not guarantee funds and staff
for implementing the approved plan. The NPS recognizes that this is
along-term plan, and, in the framework of the plan, park managers would
take incremental steps to reach park management goals and objectives.
While some of the actions can be accomplished with little or no
funding, some actions would require more detailed implementation plans,
site specific environmental analysis and/or cultural compliance, and
additional funds. The park would actively seek alternative sources of
funding, but there is no guarantee that all the components of the plan
would be implemented.
As a delegated EIS, the official responsible for the final decision
is the Regional Director, Pacific West Region; subsequently the
official with responsibility for implementing the approved plan would
be the Superintendent, Olympic National Park.
Dated: April 11, 2006.
Cicely A. Muldoon,
Acting Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the
Federal Register on July 11, 2006.
[FR Doc. 06-6224 Filed 7-13-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-KJ-M