Final General Management Plan and Comprehensive River Management Plan/Middle and South Forks of the Kings River and North Fork of the Kern River; Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, Tulare and Fresno Counties, California; Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Impact Statement, 67158-67159 [06-9279]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
67158
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Notices
not be considered. There may be
circumstances in which we would
withhold from the record a respondent’s
identity, as allowable by the law. If you
wish us to withhold your name and/or
address, you must state this
prominently at the beginning of your
comment. In addition, you must present
a rationale for withholding this
information. This rationale must
demonstrate that disclosure ‘‘would
constitute an unwarranted invasion of
primary.’’ Unsupported assertions will
not meet this burden. In the absence of
exception, documentable circumstances,
this information will be released. All
submissions from organizations or
businesses, and from individuals
identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of
organizations or businesses, will be
made available for public inspection in
their entirety.
MMS Information Collection
Clearance Officer: Arlene Bajusz, (202)
208–7744.
Dated: September 12, 2006.
E.P. Danenberger,
Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. E6–19514 Filed 11–17–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Final General Management Plan and
Comprehensive River Management
Plan/Middle and South Forks of the
Kings River and North Fork of the Kern
River; Sequoia and Kings Canyon
National Parks, Tulare and Fresno
Counties, California; Notice of
Availability of Final Environmental
Impact Statement
Summary: Pursuant to § 102(2)(C) of
the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (Pub. L. 91–190, as amended),
and the Council on Environmental
Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500–
1508), the National Park Service,
Department of the Interior, has prepared
a Final Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for the General Management Plan
(GMP) and Comprehensive River
Management for the Middle and South
Forks Kings River and the North Fork
Kern River and for Sequoia and Kings
Canyon National Parks located in
California. The purpose and need for the
plans is to establish a park vision for the
next 15–20 years, provide direction for
the management of wild and scenic
rivers, replace an outdated master plan,
guide management of cultural and
natural resources, address unresolved
issues in specific areas, and address the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:10 Nov 17, 2006
Jkt 211001
changing context of the parks within the
regional ecosystem.
Proposed Plan and Alternatives: The
final EIS describes and analyzes five
alternatives which respond to both NPS
planning requirements and to the issues
identified during the public scoping
process. The No-Action alternative
would continue current management
direction, and it is the baseline for
comparing the other alternatives (it was
originally Alternative B when the
alternatives were first presented to the
public in the winter of 2000). The
Preferred Alternative would
accommodate sustainable growth and
visitor enjoyment, protect ecosystem
diversity, and preserve basic character
while adapting to changing user groups
(this was also determined to be
‘‘environmentally preferred’’).
Alternative A would emphasize natural
ecosystems and biodiversity, with
reduced use and development;
Alternative C would preserve the parks’
traditional character and retain the feel
of yesteryear, with guided growth; and
Alternative D would preserve the basic
character and adapt to changing user
groups. Also included is a
comprehensive river management plan
for the portions of the Middle and South
Forks of the Kings River and the North
Fork of the Kern River, which have been
designated by Congress as components
of the national wild and scenic rivers
system. The purpose of the river
management plan is to provide direction
and overall guidance on the
management of lands and uses within
the river corridors. Regarding
wilderness, although the GMP does
address compatibility of the alternatives
with the park’s backcountry and
wilderness values, there is no new
wilderness designation proposed under
any of the alternatives. The foreseeable
environmental consequences of each
alternative, and appropriate mitigation
strategies, are identified and analyzed in
the EIS.
Public Review and Changes in the
Final Document: Prior to development
of the Draft EIS, nine scoping meetings
were held, seven planning newsletters
issued; alternatives planning workshops
were held in seven cities; and the parks
regularly communicated with the
cooperating association and
concessioners authorized to operate in
the parks. Meetings and contacts have
occurred with special use permittees,
private landowners; and numerous
other stakeholders. The project mailing
list included more than 3700 entries.
The Draft EIS was available for 150 days
review during May–October, 2004. It
was made available at local area
libraries, and could be reviewed
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
electronically via https://www.nps.gov/
seki or https://planning.den.nps.gov/seki.
Printed and CD copies were sent upon
request, and also distributed to agencies
and organizations listed as recipients in
the Consultation and Coordination
section of the EIS. Public meetings to
facilitate review and comment on the
Draft EIS were held during the comment
period both in the parks, as well as in
the following locations: Thee Rivers,
Visalia, Fresno/Clovis, Sacramento, San
Francisco, Los Angeles and Bishop.
Approximately 400 comments were
received; this information resulted in
minor corrections and clarifications to
the Draft EIS/GMP. Editorial changes
and additional explanatory text on
topics of interest were incorporated.
There were no substantive changes due
to public commentary.
Following the closure of the public
comment period, Pub. L. 108–447 was
enacted and changes to the document to
accommodate this public law were
made with regard to two areas with
special use permits: (1) The law that
appended the Mineral King area to the
park in 1978 required that use of cabins
at Mineral King be phased out upon the
deaths of the permittees of record. Pub.
L. 108–447 amended Pub. L. 95–625 by
authorizing indefinite extension of
special use permits to heirs, successors
and assigns; and (2) Pub. L. 108–447
amended Pub. L. 99–338 to allow the
Secretary to permit Southern California
Edison Co. up to two additional ten-year
permit periods of hydroelectric
operations until 2026.
Description of Alternatives: The Final
EIS for the GMP/Comprehensive River
Management Plans includes four action
alternatives and a no-action alternative
which continues current management.
The Comprehensive River management
Plan would be common to every
alternative. The No-Action Alternative
(Continue Current Management): The
parks are managed as they are now in
accordance with approved plans (such
as development concept plans, and the
1996 Giant Forest Interim Management
Plan); negative resource impacts and
visitor demands are mitigated by
relocating development, reducing some
uses, or confining new developed areas.
Visitor uses are reassessed and revised
as new information about natural and
cultural resource impacts and visitor
needs emerges. Current facilities are
inadequate for park needs and visitor
use levels, and crowding is common in
some areas.
Preferred Alternative: The parks’
appeal is broadened to be more relevant
to diverse user groups, Increased day
use is accommodated, and overnight
visitation is retained. The integrity of
E:\FR\FM\20NON1.SGM
20NON1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Notices
park resources is paramount. Stronger
educational and outreach programs
provide enjoyment and introduce park
conservation values. The basic character
of park activities and the rustic
architecture of facilities are retained so
that the parks remain strikingly different
from surrounding areas. Park
administrative facilities are redesigned
and may be relocated outside the parks.
Park facilities accommodate sustainable
growth. Stock use continues with
appropriate management and
monitoring.
Alternative A: Emphasize Natural
Ecosystems and Biodiversity; Reduce
Use and Development: The parks are
natural resource preserves; they are
primarily valued because they contain
publicly owned resources that will be
conserved for the future. Levels of use
are lower than at present, and visitor
experiences are more directly connected
to natural resources and provide more
solitude. The parks contrast strongly
with surrounding lands which are
continuing to develop. Park managers
aggressively cooperate with the
managers of surrounding lands to
enhance range-wide biodiversity.
Alternative C: Preserve Traditional
Character and Retain the Feel of
Yesteryear; Guide Growth: The parks
present a traditional character and the
feeling of yesteryear, where experiences
are more reminiscent of how visitors
used the parks in the past. This is
conveyed through rustic architecture
and lower impact recreational activities
(such as sightseeing and hiking) that
were popular from the 1920s to the
1960s, providing an experience that is
strikingly different from that in an urban
setting. Redesigned developed areas
accommodate limited growth; overnight
stays are encouraged. Negative impacts
on natural resources are controlled, so
as to maintain or improve resource
conditions.
Alternative D: Preserve Basic
Character and Adapt to Changing User
Groups; Guide Growth: The parks
preserve some of their traditional
character and rustic architecture, but
diverse new user groups and uses are
encouraged. Day use is more common.
Facilities are expanded to meet users’
needs, while frequent interpretive
programs are offered to educate,
entertain, and instill a sense of park
conservation values. Negative impacts
on natural resources are controlled or
mitigated, so as to maintain or improve
resource conditions.
Addresses and Further Information:
Copies of the Final EIS will be available
for public review in the office of the
Superintendent and at local area public
libraries, and may also be requested (by
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:10 Nov 17, 2006
Jkt 211001
those not presently on the mailing list)
by contacting the park by letter at: Final
EIS/GMP, Sequoia and Kings Canyon
National Parks, 47050 Generals
Highway, Three Rivers, CA 93271–9651;
by telephone at (559) 565–3101; or by email at seki_superintendent@nps.gov.
Please note that names and addresses of
all respondents will become part of the
public record. Our practice is to make
all comments, including names, home
addresses, home phone numbers, and email addresses of respondents, available
for public review. Individual
respondents may request that we
withhold their names and/or home
addresses, etc., but if you wish us to
consider withholding this information
you must state this prominently at the
beginning of your comments. In
addition, you must present a rationale
for withholding this information. This
rationale must demonstrate that
disclosure would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of privacy.
Unsupported assertions will not meet
this burden. In the absence of
exceptional, documentable
circumstances, this information will be
released. We will always make
submissions from organizations or
businesses, and from individuals
identifying themselves as
representatives of or officials of
organizations or businesses, available
for public inspection in their entirety.
Decision: The National Park Service
will execute a Record of Decision not
sooner than 30 days following
publication by the Environmental
Protection Agency of their notice of
filing of the Final EIS in the Federal
Register. As a delegated EIS the official
responsible for the final approval of the
General Management Plan and
Comprehensive River Management Plan
is the Regional Director; subsequently
the official responsible for
implementing the new plans would be
the Superintendent, Sequoia and Kings
Canyon National Parks.
Dated: October 6, 2006.
George J. Turnbull,
Acting Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
[FR Doc. 06–9279 Filed 11–17–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–X2–M
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
Quarterly Status Report of Water
Service, Repayment, and Other WaterRelated Contract Negotiations
AGENCY:
Bureau of Reclamation,
Interior.
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ACTION:
67159
Notice.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of
contractual actions that have been
proposed to the Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation) and are new, modified,
discontinued, or completed since the
last publication of this notice on August
2, 2006. This notice is one of a variety
of means used to inform the public
about proposed contractual actions for
capital recovery and management of
project resources and facilities
consistent with section 9(f) of the
Reclamation Project Act of 1939.
Additional announcements of
individual contract actions may be
published in the Federal Register and in
newspapers of general circulation in the
areas determined by Reclamation to be
affected by the proposed action.
ADDRESSES: The identity of the
approving officer and other information
pertaining to a specific contract
proposal may be obtained by calling or
writing the appropriate regional office at
the address and telephone number given
for each region in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sandra L. Simons, Manager, Contract
Services Office, Bureau of Reclamation,
PO Box 25007, Denver, Colorado 80225–
0007; telephone 303–445–2902.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Consistent
with section 9(f) of the Reclamation
Project Act of 1939 and the rules and
regulations published in 52 FR 11954,
April 13, 1987 (43 CFR 426.22),
Reclamation will publish notice of
proposed or amendatory contract
actions for any contract for the delivery
of project water for authorized uses in
newspapers of general circulation in the
affected area at least 60 days prior to
contract execution. Announcements
may be in the form of news releases,
legal notices, official letters,
memorandums, or other forms of
written material. Meetings, workshops,
and/or hearings may also be used, as
appropriate, to provide local publicity.
The public participation procedures do
not apply to proposed contracts for the
sale of surplus or interim irrigation
water for a term of 1 year or less. Either
of the contracting parties may invite the
public to observe contract proceedings.
All public participation procedures will
be coordinated with those involved in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act. Pursuant to
the ‘‘Final Revised Public Participation
Procedures’’ for water resource-related
contract negotiations, published in 47
FR 7763, February 22, 1982, a tabulation
is provided of all proposed contractual
actions in each of the five Reclamation
E:\FR\FM\20NON1.SGM
20NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 223 (Monday, November 20, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67158-67159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9279]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Final General Management Plan and Comprehensive River Management
Plan/Middle and South Forks of the Kings River and North Fork of the
Kern River; Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, Tulare and Fresno
Counties, California; Notice of Availability of Final Environmental
Impact Statement
Summary: Pursuant to Sec. 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, as amended), and the Council on
Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500-1508), the National
Park Service, Department of the Interior, has prepared a Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the General Management Plan
(GMP) and Comprehensive River Management for the Middle and South Forks
Kings River and the North Fork Kern River and for Sequoia and Kings
Canyon National Parks located in California. The purpose and need for
the plans is to establish a park vision for the next 15-20 years,
provide direction for the management of wild and scenic rivers, replace
an outdated master plan, guide management of cultural and natural
resources, address unresolved issues in specific areas, and address the
changing context of the parks within the regional ecosystem.
Proposed Plan and Alternatives: The final EIS describes and
analyzes five alternatives which respond to both NPS planning
requirements and to the issues identified during the public scoping
process. The No-Action alternative would continue current management
direction, and it is the baseline for comparing the other alternatives
(it was originally Alternative B when the alternatives were first
presented to the public in the winter of 2000). The Preferred
Alternative would accommodate sustainable growth and visitor enjoyment,
protect ecosystem diversity, and preserve basic character while
adapting to changing user groups (this was also determined to be
``environmentally preferred''). Alternative A would emphasize natural
ecosystems and biodiversity, with reduced use and development;
Alternative C would preserve the parks' traditional character and
retain the feel of yesteryear, with guided growth; and Alternative D
would preserve the basic character and adapt to changing user groups.
Also included is a comprehensive river management plan for the portions
of the Middle and South Forks of the Kings River and the North Fork of
the Kern River, which have been designated by Congress as components of
the national wild and scenic rivers system. The purpose of the river
management plan is to provide direction and overall guidance on the
management of lands and uses within the river corridors. Regarding
wilderness, although the GMP does address compatibility of the
alternatives with the park's backcountry and wilderness values, there
is no new wilderness designation proposed under any of the
alternatives. The foreseeable environmental consequences of each
alternative, and appropriate mitigation strategies, are identified and
analyzed in the EIS.
Public Review and Changes in the Final Document: Prior to
development of the Draft EIS, nine scoping meetings were held, seven
planning newsletters issued; alternatives planning workshops were held
in seven cities; and the parks regularly communicated with the
cooperating association and concessioners authorized to operate in the
parks. Meetings and contacts have occurred with special use permittees,
private landowners; and numerous other stakeholders. The project
mailing list included more than 3700 entries. The Draft EIS was
available for 150 days review during May-October, 2004. It was made
available at local area libraries, and could be reviewed electronically
via https://www.nps.gov/seki or https://planning.den.nps.gov/seki.
Printed and CD copies were sent upon request, and also distributed to
agencies and organizations listed as recipients in the Consultation and
Coordination section of the EIS. Public meetings to facilitate review
and comment on the Draft EIS were held during the comment period both
in the parks, as well as in the following locations: Thee Rivers,
Visalia, Fresno/Clovis, Sacramento, San Francisco, Los Angeles and
Bishop. Approximately 400 comments were received; this information
resulted in minor corrections and clarifications to the Draft EIS/GMP.
Editorial changes and additional explanatory text on topics of interest
were incorporated. There were no substantive changes due to public
commentary.
Following the closure of the public comment period, Pub. L. 108-447
was enacted and changes to the document to accommodate this public law
were made with regard to two areas with special use permits: (1) The
law that appended the Mineral King area to the park in 1978 required
that use of cabins at Mineral King be phased out upon the deaths of the
permittees of record. Pub. L. 108-447 amended Pub. L. 95-625 by
authorizing indefinite extension of special use permits to heirs,
successors and assigns; and (2) Pub. L. 108-447 amended Pub. L. 99-338
to allow the Secretary to permit Southern California Edison Co. up to
two additional ten-year permit periods of hydroelectric operations
until 2026.
Description of Alternatives: The Final EIS for the GMP/
Comprehensive River Management Plans includes four action alternatives
and a no-action alternative which continues current management. The
Comprehensive River management Plan would be common to every
alternative. The No-Action Alternative (Continue Current Management):
The parks are managed as they are now in accordance with approved plans
(such as development concept plans, and the 1996 Giant Forest Interim
Management Plan); negative resource impacts and visitor demands are
mitigated by relocating development, reducing some uses, or confining
new developed areas. Visitor uses are reassessed and revised as new
information about natural and cultural resource impacts and visitor
needs emerges. Current facilities are inadequate for park needs and
visitor use levels, and crowding is common in some areas.
Preferred Alternative: The parks' appeal is broadened to be more
relevant to diverse user groups, Increased day use is accommodated, and
overnight visitation is retained. The integrity of
[[Page 67159]]
park resources is paramount. Stronger educational and outreach programs
provide enjoyment and introduce park conservation values. The basic
character of park activities and the rustic architecture of facilities
are retained so that the parks remain strikingly different from
surrounding areas. Park administrative facilities are redesigned and
may be relocated outside the parks. Park facilities accommodate
sustainable growth. Stock use continues with appropriate management and
monitoring.
Alternative A: Emphasize Natural Ecosystems and Biodiversity;
Reduce Use and Development: The parks are natural resource preserves;
they are primarily valued because they contain publicly owned resources
that will be conserved for the future. Levels of use are lower than at
present, and visitor experiences are more directly connected to natural
resources and provide more solitude. The parks contrast strongly with
surrounding lands which are continuing to develop. Park managers
aggressively cooperate with the managers of surrounding lands to
enhance range-wide biodiversity.
Alternative C: Preserve Traditional Character and Retain the Feel
of Yesteryear; Guide Growth: The parks present a traditional character
and the feeling of yesteryear, where experiences are more reminiscent
of how visitors used the parks in the past. This is conveyed through
rustic architecture and lower impact recreational activities (such as
sightseeing and hiking) that were popular from the 1920s to the 1960s,
providing an experience that is strikingly different from that in an
urban setting. Redesigned developed areas accommodate limited growth;
overnight stays are encouraged. Negative impacts on natural resources
are controlled, so as to maintain or improve resource conditions.
Alternative D: Preserve Basic Character and Adapt to Changing User
Groups; Guide Growth: The parks preserve some of their traditional
character and rustic architecture, but diverse new user groups and uses
are encouraged. Day use is more common. Facilities are expanded to meet
users' needs, while frequent interpretive programs are offered to
educate, entertain, and instill a sense of park conservation values.
Negative impacts on natural resources are controlled or mitigated, so
as to maintain or improve resource conditions.
Addresses and Further Information: Copies of the Final EIS will be
available for public review in the office of the Superintendent and at
local area public libraries, and may also be requested (by those not
presently on the mailing list) by contacting the park by letter at:
Final EIS/GMP, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, 47050 Generals
Highway, Three Rivers, CA 93271-9651; by telephone at (559) 565-3101;
or by e-mail at seki_superintendent@nps.gov. Please note that names
and addresses of all respondents will become part of the public record.
Our practice is to make all comments, including names, home addresses,
home phone numbers, and e-mail addresses of respondents, available for
public review. Individual respondents may request that we withhold
their names and/or home addresses, etc., but if you wish us to consider
withholding this information you must state this prominently at the
beginning of your comments. In addition, you must present a rationale
for withholding this information. This rationale must demonstrate that
disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.
Unsupported assertions will not meet this burden. In the absence of
exceptional, documentable circumstances, this information will be
released. We will always make submissions from organizations or
businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as
representatives of or officials of organizations or businesses,
available for public inspection in their entirety.
Decision: The National Park Service will execute a Record of
Decision not sooner than 30 days following publication by the
Environmental Protection Agency of their notice of filing of the Final
EIS in the Federal Register. As a delegated EIS the official
responsible for the final approval of the General Management Plan and
Comprehensive River Management Plan is the Regional Director;
subsequently the official responsible for implementing the new plans
would be the Superintendent, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks.
Dated: October 6, 2006.
George J. Turnbull,
Acting Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
[FR Doc. 06-9279 Filed 11-17-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-X2-M
