Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Acquisition of Florida Power and Light Company Land in the East Everglades Expansion Area, Everglades National Park, Florida, 2688-2690 [2014-00634]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
2688
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2014 / Notices
publicly available at any time. While
you can ask us in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so. We will make all submissions
from organizations and businesses, and
from individuals identifying themselves
as representatives or officials of
organizations or businesses, available
for public inspection in their entirety.
Dated: July 12, 2013.
John Wessels,
Regional Director, Intermountain Region,
National Park Service,
Editorial Note: This document was
received at the Office of the Federal Register
January 3, 2014.
[FR Doc. 2014–00078 Filed 1–14–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
[NPS–IMR–YELL–14103; PPIMYELL82,
PPMRSNR1Z.AM0000]
Remote Vaccination Program To
Reduce the Prevalence of Brucellosis
in Yellowstone Bison, Final
Environmental Impact Statement,
Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of Availability.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42
U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the National Park
Service announces the availability of a
Final Environmental Impact Statement
for the Remote Vaccination Program to
Reduce the Prevalence of Brucellosis in
Yellowstone Bison, Yellowstone
National Park, Wyoming.
DATES: The National Park Service will
execute a Record of Decision (ROD) no
sooner than 30 days following
publication by the Environmental
Protection Agency of the Notice of
Availability of the Final Environmental
Impact Statement.
ADDRESSES: Information will be
available for public inspection online at
https://parkplanning.nps.gov/YELL, and
at the Yellowstone Center for Resources,
P.O. Box 168, Yellowstone National
Park, Wyoming 82190, telephone (307)
344–2203.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer Carpenter or Rick Wallen, P.O.
Box 168, Yellowstone National Park,
WY 82190, telephone (307) 344–2203,
or by email at YELL_Bison_
Management@NPS.GOV.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
document describes three management
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:04 Jan 14, 2014
Jkt 232001
alternatives including a no-action
alternative and the NPS preferred
alternative. The anticipated
environmental impacts of those
alternatives are analyzed. The final
document also includes responses to
substantive comments from the public,
from traditionally associated American
Indian tribes, and from government
agencies.
Alternative A (No Action) describes
the currently authorized syringe
vaccination of calves and yearlings that
are periodically captured at the park
boundary. Alternative B describes a
proposed action to continue the syringe
vaccination program and add a field
program to remotely vaccinate calves
and yearlings using a pneumatic rifle to
deliver an absorbable projectile with a
vaccine payload to muscle tissue.
Alternative C describes a program to
continue the syringe vaccination action
and add a field program to remotely
vaccinate calves, yearlings, and adult
females as is described in Alternative B.
The National Park Service has
identified Alternative A, No Action, as
its preferred alternative based on
substantial uncertainties associated with
vaccine efficacy, delivery, duration of
the vaccine-induced protective immune
response, diagnostics, and bison
behavior, existing management
flexibilities, and evaluation of public
comments. Consistent with the 2000
Interagency Bison Management Plan
(IBMP), the preferred alternative would
continue hand-syringe vaccination of
bison at capture facilities near the park
boundary and conduct monitoring and
research on the relationship between
vaccine-induced immune responses and
protection from clinical disease (e.g.,
abortions). Also, selective culling of
potentially infectious bison based on
age and diagnostic test results may be
continued at capture facilities to reduce
the number of abortions that maintain
the disease. The preferred alternative
would continue the adaptive
management program, as described in
the 2000 Record of Decision for the
IBMP and subsequent adaptive
management adjustments, to learn more
about the disease brucellosis and
answer uncertainties, as well as to
develop or improve suppression
techniques that could be used to
facilitate effective outcomes, minimize
adverse impacts, and lower operational
costs of efforts to reduce brucellosis
prevalence in the future.
The National Park Service would also
continue to work with other federal and
state agencies, American Indian tribes,
academic institutions, nongovernmental organizations, and other
interested parties to develop holistic
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
management approaches, monitoring
and research projects that could be
conducted to improve the adaptive
management decision process, and
better vaccines, delivery methods, and
diagnostics for reducing the prevalence
of brucellosis in bison and elk and
transmissions to cattle.
Dated: October 31, 2013.
Laura E. Joss,
Acting Regional Director, Intermountain
Region, National Park Service.
[FR Doc. 2014–00636 Filed 1–14–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–CB–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
[NPS–SER–EVER–14535;
PX.P0078991D.00.1]
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the Acquisition of Florida Power
and Light Company Land in the East
Everglades Expansion Area,
Everglades National Park, Florida
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C)
of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the
National Park Service (NPS) announces
the availability of a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (Draft EIS) for the
Acquisition of Florida Power and Light
Company Land in the East Everglades
Expansion Area, Everglades National
Park, Florida.
DATES: The NPS will accept comments
on the Draft EIS from the public for a
period of 60 days following publication
of the Environmental Protection
Agency’s Notice of Availability in the
Federal Register. We will announce the
dates, times, and location for a public
meeting to solicit comments on the Draft
EIS through the NPS Planning,
Environment, and Public Comment
(PEPC) Web site at https://
parkplanning.nps.gov/EVER; the Web
site of Everglades National Park at
www.nps.gov/ever; and media outlets.
ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the
Draft EIS will be available online at
https://parkplanning.nps.gov/EVER. A
limited number of compact disks and
printed copies will be also available at
the Park headquarters, Everglades
National Park, 40001 State Highway
9336, Homestead, Florida 33034–6733.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brien Culhane, Everglades National
Park, 40001 State Road 9336,
Homestead, FL 33034–6733 or by
telephone at (305) 242–7717.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2014 / Notices
The Draft
EIS addresses options for NPS
acquisition of existing Florida Power
and Light (FPL) land located within the
park, or sufficient interest in the
property, to facilitate hydrologic and
ecologic restoration of the park and
Everglades ecosystem. This action is
needed to support the mission of NPS
and the park, because the East
Everglades Expansion Area (EEEA),
which includes the existing FPL parcel,
has been identified as vital to long-term
protection of the park for ecosystem
restoration purposes. Also, the
acquisition of the existing FPL parcel is
needed to support the goals of restoring
the Northeast Shark River Slough and to
fulfill the purposes of the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan. Public Law (Pub. L.) 101–229
(December 13, 1989), articulates that the
Everglades is both nationally and
internationally significant and sets forth
specific goals and objectives for
acquisition of properties in this area.
Acquisition of land within the EEEA
through an exchange of lands with FPL
is also authorized by Public Law 111–
11 (March 30, 2009).
The Draft EIS describes five
alternatives for acquiring land owned by
FPL in the EEEA within the boundaries
of the park, or sufficient interest in this
property, as well as the affected
environment and the environmental
consequences of implementing these
alternatives. The Draft EIS addresses
both the potential impacts from the
acquisition of FPL land in the park, as
well as the indirect impacts that could
result from the subsequent construction
and operation of transmission lines that
could be built by FPL either inside or
outside the park as a result of the land
acquisition alternative selected. The
alternatives are described in detail in
Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS, and Chapter
4 details the key impacts of
implementing the alternatives.
The following describes each of the
alternatives included in the Draft EIS:
Alternative 1a—The NPS would not
take action to acquire FPL property
within the park. There would be no
change in the status of FPL lands in the
park. The impact analysis for this
alternative assumes that FPL would not
construct transmission lines on its
existing land in the park or in any area
outside the park. This alternative
represents the environmental baseline.
It assumes that the NPS would not be
able to flow water on this property to
achieve its long-term restoration
objectives because it would not have
acquired the right or interest to do so.
Alternative 1b—The NPS would not
take action to acquire FPL property
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:04 Jan 14, 2014
Jkt 232001
within the park, the same as alternative
1a, but the impact analysis for this
alternative assumes that FPL would
construct transmission lines on its
existing land in the park. Although it
represents the same management
decision as alternative 1a, the impact
analysis for this alternative addresses
the impacts of transmission line
construction on the FPL property.
Similar to alternative 1a, it also assumes
that the NPS would not be able to flow
water on this property to achieve its
long-term restoration objectives.
Alternative 2—The NPS would
acquire the FPL corridor by purchase or
through the exercise of eminent domain
authority by the United States. This
alternative would result in an increase
of 320 acres of NPS-owned land within
the authorized boundary of the park and
would allow for flowage of water on this
property. The transmission line
construction scenario associated with
the analysis of the impacts of alternative
2 assumes that FPL would likely acquire
a replacement corridor east of the
existing park boundary to meet its
transmission needs and the lines would
be built outside the park.
Alternative 3—The NPS would
acquire fee title to the FPL corridor
through a fee-for-fee exchange for park
property, as authorized by the exchange
legislation (Pub. L. 111–11). NPS land
conveyed to FPL would consist of 260
acres along 6.5 miles of the eastern
boundary of the EEEA, and the
boundary of the park would be adjusted
upon completion of the exchange to
remove the lands conveyed to FPL from
the park. The NPS would also convey a
90-foot-wide perpetual nonnative
vegetation management easement to FPL
adjacent to the entire length of the
exchange corridor. The fee-for-fee land
exchange would be subject to terms and
conditions that are to be agreed upon
between the NPS and FPL and
incorporated into a binding exchange
agreement. FPL would be required to
allow the United States the perpetual
right, power and privilege to flood and
submerge the property consistent with
hydrologic restoration requirements.
The transmission line construction
scenario associated with the analysis of
the impacts of this alternative assumes
that FPL would build the transmission
lines in the exchange corridor in
accordance with the terms and
conditions established in the fee for fee
exchange agreement.
Alternative 4—The NPS would
acquire fee title to the FPL corridor
through an exchange for an easement on
NPS property. This is essentially the
same as alternative 3, except that NPS
would grant an easement (not fee title)
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2689
to FPL on 260 acres of park land along
6.5 miles of the eastern boundary of the
EEEA for potential construction of
transmission lines, in accordance with
the terms and conditions developed for
this ‘‘easement for fee’’ exchange. The
NPS would retain ownership of the
corridor, but would no longer have the
unencumbered use of the exchange
corridor. The NPS would also convey a
90-foot-wide perpetual nonnative
vegetation management easement to FPL
adjacent to the entire length of the
exchange corridor. The easement for fee
land exchange would also be subject to
terms and conditions that are to be
agreed upon between the NPS and FPL
and incorporated into a binding
exchange agreement. Similar to
alternative 3, the FPL easement area
would be subject to a perpetual flowage
easement. The transmission line
construction scenario associated with
the analysis of the impacts of this
alternative assumes that FPL would
build the transmission lines in the
exchange corridor in accordance with
the terms and conditions established in
the easement for fee exchange
agreement.
Alternative 5—The NPS would
acquire a perpetual flowage easement on
FPL’s property within the EEEA through
purchase, condemnation, or donation by
FPL. FPL would retain ownership of its
corridor in the park during the term of
the easement and could seek to site
transmission lines there. The flowage
allowed under this easement would
allow sufficient water flow over this
area to support ecosystem restoration
projects. There would be no change to
the authorized boundary of the park,
although the NPS would retain the
current goal of acquiring this property
over the long term. The construction
scenario associated with the analysis of
the impacts of this alternative would be
the same as the one for alternative 1b
(FPL construction of transmission lines
on its existing land in the park), except
that NPS would acquire a long-term,
perpetual flowage easement.
If you wish to comment on the Draft
EIS, you may submit your comments by
any one of several methods. We
encourage you to comment via the
internet on the PEPC Web site at
https://parkplanning.nps.gov/EVER. An
electronic public comment form is
provided on this Web site. You may also
comment via mail to: Everglades
National Park FPL Project Planning
Team, National Park Service, M. Elmer
(DSC–P), P.O. Box 25287, Denver, CO
80225–0287; or by hand delivery to Park
headquarters, at 40001 State Road 9336,
Homestead, FL 33034–6733.
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
2690
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2014 / Notices
Before including your address, phone
number, email address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, please be aware your entire
comment—including your personal
identifying information—may be made
publicly available at any time. While
you can ask us in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
The responsible official for this Draft
EIS is the Regional Director, NPS
Southeast Region, 100 Alabama Street
SW., 1924 Building, Atlanta, Georgia
30303.
Dated: January 8, 2014.
Stan Austin,
Regional Director, Southeast Region.
[FR Doc. 2014–00634 Filed 1–14–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–JD–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
[NPS–NCR–GWMP–13704;
PX.XGWMP0400.00.1]
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the Dyke Marsh Restoration and
Long-term Management Plan, George
Washington Memorial Parkway,
Virginia
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The National Park Service
(NPS) announces the availability of a
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) for the Dyke Marsh Restoration
and Long-term Management Plan at
George Washington Memorial Parkway,
Virginia. The DEIS provides a
systematic analysis of alternatives for
the restoration and long-term
management of the tidal freshwater
marsh and other associated wetland
habitats lost or impacted in Dyke Marsh
Preserve on the Potomac River.
DATES: The NPS will accept comments
on the DEIS from the public for 60 days
after the date that the Environmental
Protection Agency publishes the notice
of availability of the DEIS in its regular
Friday Federal Register listing. A public
meeting will be held during the review
period to facilitate the submission of
public comment. Once scheduled, the
meeting date will be announced via the
George Washington Memorial Parkway
Web site
(https://www.nps.gov/gwmp/), the NPS’s
Planning Environment and Public
Comment (PEPC) Web site (https://
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:04 Jan 14, 2014
Jkt 232001
parkplanning.nps.gov/gwmp), and a
press release to area media.
ADDRESSES: The DEIS for the Dyke
Marsh Restoration and Long-term
Management Plan will be available for
public review online at the NPS’s PEPC
Web site (https://parkplanning.nps.gov/
GWMP). You may submit your
comments by any one of several
methods. The preferred method of
commenting is via the Internet at
(https://parkplanning.nps.gov/GWMP).
You may also mail comments to Dyke
Marsh Restoration Plan, 700 George
Washington Memorial Parkway, Turkey
Run Park Headquarters, McLean, VA
22101. Or, you may hand-deliver
comments to 700 George Washington
Memorial Parkway, Turkey Run Park
Headquarters, McLean, VA 22101.
Written comments will also be accepted
at the public meeting. We will not
accept comments by fax, email, or in
any other way than those specified
above. We will not accept bulk
comments in any format (hard copy or
electronic) submitted on behalf of
others. Before including your address,
phone number, email address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex
Romero, Superintendent, 700 George
Washington Memorial Parkway, Turkey
Run Park Headquarters, McLean, VA
22101; telephone (703) 289–2500.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
purpose of this DEIS is to develop a
plan for the restoration and long-term
management of the tidal freshwater
marsh and other associated wetland
habitats lost or impacted in Dyke Marsh
Preserve on the Potomac River.
Dyke Marsh Preserve is one of the last
large tracts of tidal freshwater marsh
along the Potomac River in the
Washington, DC, area and has existed
for at least 2,200 years.
Located just south of Alexandria,
Virginia, Dyke Marsh Preserve is viewed
as a national treasure because of its
proximity to the Nation’s Capital and a
large urban/suburban population, its
history, and its current potential for
providing ecosystem services,
recreational values and educational
opportunities. Despite continual
degradation of the existing marsh, it
provides numerous natural benefits and
services, including resident and
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
migratory wildlife habitat, refuge for
state species of concern, attenuation of
tidal energy, shoreline stabilization,
flood control, and water quality
enhancement.
The goal of the actions described in
the DEIS is to restore areas of Dyke
Marsh that were previously impacted by
dredging and erosion. The park will reestablish soil elevations to sustain
marsh plant communities while
preventing damage to vegetation in the
existing wetland. In the long-term, the
project will provide additional wetlands
to the Potomac River watershed
ecosystems, preserve the aesthetic and
natural values of Dyke Marsh and the
George Washington Memorial Parkway,
and continue to offer recreational
opportunities currently available.
Specific objectives of the plan are listed
below.
Natural Resources. Dyke Marsh
Restoration will protect and maintain
tidal freshwater wetlands and associated
ecosystems to provide habitat for fish,
wildlife, and other biota. The park will
ensure that management actions
promote native species while
minimizing invasive nonnative plants.
The marsh restoration will reduce or
eliminate erosion of the existing marsh
and, to the extent practicable, will
restore and maintain hydrologic
processes needed to sustain the marsh.
The restored marsh will protect
breeding populations of state species of
concern such as least bittern
(Ixobrychus exilis), state critically
imperiled swamp sparrow (Meloxpiza
georgiana ssp. georgiana, G5T5, S1B/
S4S5N), and state imperiled species
such as river bulrush (Bolboschoenus
fluviatilis, G5S2). Finally, the
restoration will increase the resiliency
of Dyke Marsh, provide a natural buffer
to storms, and help ameliorate flooding
in populated residential areas.
Cultural Resources. The restoration
will protect the historic resources and
cultural landscape features associated
with Dyke Marsh and the George
Washington Memorial Parkway.
Visitor Experience will be enhanced
through appropriate educational,
interpretation, and research
opportunities at Dyke Marsh and
enhance access by diverse audiences.
The DEIS analyzes two action
alternatives and the no action
alternative, as described below.
Alternative A: No Action—Under this
alternative, there would be no
restoration. Current management of the
marsh would continue, which includes
providing basic maintenance related to
the Haul Road, control of nonnative
invasive plant species, ongoing
interpretive and environmental
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2688-2690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00634]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
[NPS-SER-EVER-14535; PX.P0078991D.00.1]
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Acquisition of
Florida Power and Light Company Land in the East Everglades Expansion
Area, Everglades National Park, Florida
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the National Park Service
(NPS) announces the availability of a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (Draft EIS) for the Acquisition of Florida Power and Light
Company Land in the East Everglades Expansion Area, Everglades National
Park, Florida.
DATES: The NPS will accept comments on the Draft EIS from the public
for a period of 60 days following publication of the Environmental
Protection Agency's Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. We
will announce the dates, times, and location for a public meeting to
solicit comments on the Draft EIS through the NPS Planning,
Environment, and Public Comment (PEPC) Web site at https://parkplanning.nps.gov/EVER; the Web site of Everglades National Park at
www.nps.gov/ever; and media outlets.
ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the Draft EIS will be available online
at https://parkplanning.nps.gov/EVER. A limited number of compact disks
and printed copies will be also available at the Park headquarters,
Everglades National Park, 40001 State Highway 9336, Homestead, Florida
33034-6733.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brien Culhane, Everglades National
Park, 40001 State Road 9336, Homestead, FL 33034-6733 or by telephone
at (305) 242-7717.
[[Page 2689]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Draft EIS addresses options for NPS
acquisition of existing Florida Power and Light (FPL) land located
within the park, or sufficient interest in the property, to facilitate
hydrologic and ecologic restoration of the park and Everglades
ecosystem. This action is needed to support the mission of NPS and the
park, because the East Everglades Expansion Area (EEEA), which includes
the existing FPL parcel, has been identified as vital to long-term
protection of the park for ecosystem restoration purposes. Also, the
acquisition of the existing FPL parcel is needed to support the goals
of restoring the Northeast Shark River Slough and to fulfill the
purposes of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Public Law
(Pub. L.) 101-229 (December 13, 1989), articulates that the Everglades
is both nationally and internationally significant and sets forth
specific goals and objectives for acquisition of properties in this
area. Acquisition of land within the EEEA through an exchange of lands
with FPL is also authorized by Public Law 111-11 (March 30, 2009).
The Draft EIS describes five alternatives for acquiring land owned
by FPL in the EEEA within the boundaries of the park, or sufficient
interest in this property, as well as the affected environment and the
environmental consequences of implementing these alternatives. The
Draft EIS addresses both the potential impacts from the acquisition of
FPL land in the park, as well as the indirect impacts that could result
from the subsequent construction and operation of transmission lines
that could be built by FPL either inside or outside the park as a
result of the land acquisition alternative selected. The alternatives
are described in detail in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS, and Chapter 4
details the key impacts of implementing the alternatives.
The following describes each of the alternatives included in the
Draft EIS:
Alternative 1a--The NPS would not take action to acquire FPL
property within the park. There would be no change in the status of FPL
lands in the park. The impact analysis for this alternative assumes
that FPL would not construct transmission lines on its existing land in
the park or in any area outside the park. This alternative represents
the environmental baseline. It assumes that the NPS would not be able
to flow water on this property to achieve its long-term restoration
objectives because it would not have acquired the right or interest to
do so.
Alternative 1b--The NPS would not take action to acquire FPL
property within the park, the same as alternative 1a, but the impact
analysis for this alternative assumes that FPL would construct
transmission lines on its existing land in the park. Although it
represents the same management decision as alternative 1a, the impact
analysis for this alternative addresses the impacts of transmission
line construction on the FPL property. Similar to alternative 1a, it
also assumes that the NPS would not be able to flow water on this
property to achieve its long-term restoration objectives.
Alternative 2--The NPS would acquire the FPL corridor by purchase
or through the exercise of eminent domain authority by the United
States. This alternative would result in an increase of 320 acres of
NPS-owned land within the authorized boundary of the park and would
allow for flowage of water on this property. The transmission line
construction scenario associated with the analysis of the impacts of
alternative 2 assumes that FPL would likely acquire a replacement
corridor east of the existing park boundary to meet its transmission
needs and the lines would be built outside the park.
Alternative 3--The NPS would acquire fee title to the FPL corridor
through a fee-for-fee exchange for park property, as authorized by the
exchange legislation (Pub. L. 111-11). NPS land conveyed to FPL would
consist of 260 acres along 6.5 miles of the eastern boundary of the
EEEA, and the boundary of the park would be adjusted upon completion of
the exchange to remove the lands conveyed to FPL from the park. The NPS
would also convey a 90-foot-wide perpetual nonnative vegetation
management easement to FPL adjacent to the entire length of the
exchange corridor. The fee-for-fee land exchange would be subject to
terms and conditions that are to be agreed upon between the NPS and FPL
and incorporated into a binding exchange agreement. FPL would be
required to allow the United States the perpetual right, power and
privilege to flood and submerge the property consistent with hydrologic
restoration requirements. The transmission line construction scenario
associated with the analysis of the impacts of this alternative assumes
that FPL would build the transmission lines in the exchange corridor in
accordance with the terms and conditions established in the fee for fee
exchange agreement.
Alternative 4--The NPS would acquire fee title to the FPL corridor
through an exchange for an easement on NPS property. This is
essentially the same as alternative 3, except that NPS would grant an
easement (not fee title) to FPL on 260 acres of park land along 6.5
miles of the eastern boundary of the EEEA for potential construction of
transmission lines, in accordance with the terms and conditions
developed for this ``easement for fee'' exchange. The NPS would retain
ownership of the corridor, but would no longer have the unencumbered
use of the exchange corridor. The NPS would also convey a 90-foot-wide
perpetual nonnative vegetation management easement to FPL adjacent to
the entire length of the exchange corridor. The easement for fee land
exchange would also be subject to terms and conditions that are to be
agreed upon between the NPS and FPL and incorporated into a binding
exchange agreement. Similar to alternative 3, the FPL easement area
would be subject to a perpetual flowage easement. The transmission line
construction scenario associated with the analysis of the impacts of
this alternative assumes that FPL would build the transmission lines in
the exchange corridor in accordance with the terms and conditions
established in the easement for fee exchange agreement.
Alternative 5--The NPS would acquire a perpetual flowage easement
on FPL's property within the EEEA through purchase, condemnation, or
donation by FPL. FPL would retain ownership of its corridor in the park
during the term of the easement and could seek to site transmission
lines there. The flowage allowed under this easement would allow
sufficient water flow over this area to support ecosystem restoration
projects. There would be no change to the authorized boundary of the
park, although the NPS would retain the current goal of acquiring this
property over the long term. The construction scenario associated with
the analysis of the impacts of this alternative would be the same as
the one for alternative 1b (FPL construction of transmission lines on
its existing land in the park), except that NPS would acquire a long-
term, perpetual flowage easement.
If you wish to comment on the Draft EIS, you may submit your
comments by any one of several methods. We encourage you to comment via
the internet on the PEPC Web site at https://parkplanning.nps.gov/EVER.
An electronic public comment form is provided on this Web site. You may
also comment via mail to: Everglades National Park FPL Project Planning
Team, National Park Service, M. Elmer (DSC-P), P.O. Box 25287, Denver,
CO 80225-0287; or by hand delivery to Park headquarters, at 40001 State
Road 9336, Homestead, FL 33034-6733.
[[Page 2690]]
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or
other personal identifying information in your comment, please be aware
your entire comment--including your personal identifying information--
may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in
your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from
public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The responsible official for this Draft EIS is the Regional
Director, NPS Southeast Region, 100 Alabama Street SW., 1924 Building,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
Dated: January 8, 2014.
Stan Austin,
Regional Director, Southeast Region.
[FR Doc. 2014-00634 Filed 1-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JD-P
