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 http://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 (http://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 (http://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 http://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 (http://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 (http://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