Notice of Availability of the Draft Archeological Resources Management Plan, Environmental Impact Statement, Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site, North Dakota, 76960-76961 [2016-26690]
Download as PDF
76960
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 214 / Friday, November 4, 2016 / Notices
Bureau of Indian Affairs
[178A2100DD/AAKC001030/
A0A501010.999900 253G]
Indian Gaming; Tribal-State Class III
Gaming Compact Taking Effect in the
State of California
Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The State of California and
the Pala Band of Mission Indians
entered into a Tribal-State compact
governing Class III gaming. This notice
announces that the compact is taking
effect.
DATES: The effective date of the compact
is November 4, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian
Gaming, Office of the Assistant
Secretary—Indian Affairs, Washington,
DC 20240, (202) 219–4066.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 11
of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
(IGRA) requires the Secretary of the
Interior to publish in the Federal
Register notice of approved Tribal-State
compacts that are for the purpose of
engaging in Class III gaming activities
on Indian lands. See Public Law 100–
497, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq. All TribalState Class III compacts are subject to
review and approval by the Secretary
under 25 CFR 293.4. The Secretary took
no action on the compact within 45
days of its submission. Therefore, the
compact is considered to have been
approved, but only to the extent the
compact is consistent with IGRA. See 25
U.S.C. 2710(d)(8)(C).
SUMMARY:
Dated: October 28, 2016.
Lawrence S. Roberts,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian
Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2016–26670 Filed 11–3–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4337–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
[NPS–MWR–KNRI–21917; 16XP103905–
PPWODESCP1–PMP00UP05.YP0000–
PX.PD171326E.00.1]
Notice of Availability of the Draft
Archeological Resources Management
Plan, Environmental Impact Statement,
Knife River Indian Villages National
Historic Site, North Dakota
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:52 Nov 03, 2016
Jkt 241001
The National Park Service
(NPS) announces the availability of the
Draft Archeological Resources
Management Plan/Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS), Knife River
Indian Village National Historic Site
(Park), North Dakota.
DATES: All comments must be
postmarked or transmitted not later than
January 3, 2017.
ADDRESSES: A limited number of hardcopies of the Draft EIS may be picked up
in-person or may be obtained by making
a request in writing to Knife River
Indian Villages National Historic Site,
P.O. Box 9, Stanton, North Dakota
58571. The document is also available
on the internet at the NPS Planning,
Environment, and Public Comment Web
site at: https://Parkplanning.nps.gov/
projectHome.cfm?projectID=34314
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Superintendent Craig Hansen can be
reached at the address above, by
telephone at (701) 745–3741 (ext. 209),
or via email at craig_hansen@nps.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
process has been conducted pursuant to
the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and the
regulations of the Department of the
Interior (43 CFR part 46). The purpose
of the plan is to provide a management
framework for proactive, sustainable
archeological resource protection at the
Park for the next 30 years. The NPS has
identified four major threats to
archeological resources. While
riverbank erosion is the most visible and
documented threat to archeological
resources, additional impacts occur
from pocket gopher activity, vegetation
encroachment, and location of Park
infrastructure.
Riverbank erosion has been an
ongoing problem since the Park was
created and this ongoing impact has the
greatest adverse effect to archeological
resources. Over the past few decades
village remnants and archeological sites
adjacent to the Knife River have
experienced measurable erosion. In
addition, Northern pocket gophers affect
archeological sites by displacing soil
and artifacts from chronologically
stratified deposits. Also, the
encroachment of woody and overgrown
vegetation into archeological sites
causes multiple issues for archeological
sites. Root growth results in
displacement of chronological layers,
similar to that of pocket gophers.
The maintenance facility for the Park
is a visual intrusion in the cultural
landscape, particularly for the Big
Hidatsa site, a designated National
Historic Landmark. The North Dakota
State Historic Preservation Office
SUMMARY:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(SHPO) and the Mandan, Hidatsa, and
Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) Tribal
Historic Preservation Office have
recommended that the facility be
relocated to remove this visual impact
from the site. In addition, the
maintenance facility is located near
burial sites and areas considered sacred
by the tribes traditionally associated
with the resources present in the Park.
Finally, the location of the Museum
Collection Storage Facility, in the
basement of the Visitor’s Center, has
had water infiltration issues. A final
goal of this plan is to develop a remedy
for this problem, or the storage facility
will need to be replaced.
Range of Alternatives Considered: The
alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIS
are summarized below.
Alternative 1: No-Action Alternative:
Under the no-action alternative,
management of archeological resources
at the Park would continue as currently
implemented.
Management would respond to
archeological resource threats but
without the benefit of site prioritization
and a proactive adaptive management
framework. Under the no-action
alternative, existing Park infrastructure
would remain in place. Repairs to the
existing visitor center to address water
infiltration issues would occur. Ongoing
riverbank erosion, pocket gopher
control, and vegetation encroachment
management activities would continue.
Elements Common to All Action
Alternatives: Under both action
alternatives, archeological resources
management at the Park would be
executed within an adaptive
management framework. This
framework would be used to address
riverbank erosion, gopher control, and
woody vegetation encroachment. The
project team developed a process to
prioritize archeological sites based on
the importance of the resource and the
level of risk of loss of the resource to
inform management decisions.
The NPS has developed indicators
and standards for managing the
archeological resources based on the
Park’s purpose, significance, objectives,
and desired conditions. These
indicators and standards will serve as a
tool to monitor and evaluate the
adaptive management actions.
Alternative 2: Relocate Facilities in
the Park: Under alternative 2,
archeological resources would be
managed under the adaptive
management framework described
above. Under this alternative, the
maintenance facility would be moved to
another location in the Park and the
existing maintenance buildings would
be removed.
E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM
04NON1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 214 / Friday, November 4, 2016 / Notices
Additionally, the museum collection
would be moved if the project to stop
water infiltration in the visitor center
building is unsuccessful or if the Park
identifies funding or partnership
opportunities to relocate the museum
collection out of the basement of the
Visitor’s Center to a more suitable
location.
Alternative 3: Locate Facilities OffSite: Under alternative 3, archeological
resources would be managed under the
adaptive management framework
described above. Under this alternative,
the Park would relocate the
maintenance facility outside the Park
boundary and remove the existing
maintenance buildings from the Park
landscape. Similar to alternative 2, the
museum collection would be moved if
the project to stop water infiltration in
the visitor center building is
unsuccessful or if the Park identifies
funding or partnership opportunities to
relocate the museum collection out of
the basement to a more suitable
location.
NPS Preferred Alternative: The
preferred alternative is likely to be a
combination of alternatives 2 and 3. The
NPS would prefer to remove the
maintenance facility from Park property,
and stop water infiltration at the visitor
center so the museum collection can
remain in place. While moving the
maintenance facility off-site is preferred
to best protect Park resources, the ability
to relocate is dependent on the
availability of suitable property at a
reasonable price. If suitable sites are not
available when the Park is ready to
relocate, the Park will construct the
facilities within the Park.
In order to comment on this plan,
comments may be transmitted
electronically through the project Web
site (address above). If preferred, you
may mail written comments directly to
the Superintendent at the address
above.
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.
Dated: September 9, 2016.
Patricia S. Trap,
Deputy Regional Director, Midwest Region.
[FR Doc. 2016–26690 Filed 11–3–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–52–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:52 Nov 03, 2016
Jkt 241001
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Record of Decision for Non-Federal Oil
and Gas Regulation Revision
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; record of
decision.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The National Park Service
(NPS) has prepared and approved a
Record of Decision (ROD) for the
Nonfederal Oil and Gas Regulations (36
CFR part 9, subpart B) Revisions.
Approval of this Record of Decision
completes the National Environmental
Policy Act process.
DATES: November 4, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the ROD are
available for public review at https://
parkplanning.nps.gov/ROD_9B.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Steensen, Chief, Geologic
Resources Division, National Park
Service, PO Box 25287, Denver, CO
80225; phone (303) 969–2014. The
responsible official for this ROD is
Jonathan Jarvis, Director, National Park
Service, 1849 C Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20240.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
process was conducted in accordance
with the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as
amended (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), its implementing regulations (40
CFR parts 1500–1508), the Department
of the Interior NEPA regulations (43
CFR part 46), and NPS Director’s Order
12, Conservation Planning,
Environmental Impact Analysis and
Decision-Making and accompanying
handbook. The original Notice of Intent
(NOI) initiating the NEPA process was
published in the Federal Register on
December 30, 2010 (75 FR 82362). The
NOI specifically solicited public
comment on draft purpose and need
statements, objectives, and issues and
concerns related to revisions of the NPS
regulations governing non-federal oil
and gas development on units of the
national park system. The NOI also
requested public comment on possible
alternatives the NPS should consider in
revising the regulations. On October 23,
2015, the NPS released for public
review the draft EIS for the Proposed
Revision of 9B Regulations Governing
Nonfederal Oil and Gas Activities
through the publication of a Notice of
Availability in the Federal Register (80
FR 64445). The Environmental
Protection Agency also issued a Notice
of Availability for the draft EIS that was
published in the Federal Register on
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
76961
October 30, 2015 (80 FR 66898). On
September 2, 2016, the Environmental
Protection Agency issued a Notice of
Availability for the plan/Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
that was published in the Federal
Register (81 FR 60697); NPS also
released the FEIS for public review on
September 2, 2016, and published its
own NPS Notice of Availability in the
Federal Register on September 7, 2016
(81 FR 61715).
The FEIS evaluated the environmental
consequences of three alternatives,
Alternative A (no action), Alternative B
(preferred and environmentally
preferable alternative), and Alternative
C.
Alternative B includes the following
alternative elements:
• Elimination of two regulatory
provisions that exempt 60% of the oil
and gas operations in System units. All
operators in System units would be
required to comply with the 9B
regulations.
• Elimination of the financial
assurance (bonding) cap. Financial
assurance would be equal to the
reasonable estimated cost of site
reclamation.
• Improving enforcement authority by
incorporating existing NPS penalty
provisions. Law enforcement staff
would have authority to write citations
for noncompliance with the regulations.
• Authorizing compensation to the
federal government for new access on
federal lands and waters outside the
boundary of an operator’s mineral right.
• Reformatting the regulations to
make it easier to identify an operator’s
information requirements and operating
standards that apply to each type of
operation.
Alternative C includes all the
proposed changes in Alternative B,
except:
• Directional drilling operations:
Alternative C would expand the scope
of the regulations to encompass surface
and subsurface directional drilling
operations outside the boundary of a
System unit.
• Proposed Operations Located
Wholly on Non-Federally Owned Land
Within the Boundary of a System Unit:
This provision would allow for an
exemption to the operations permit
requirement for those operations located
wholly on non-federally owned land
within a System unit, if the operator
could demonstrate that the proposed
operation would have no effect to NPS
administered resources or values.
• Joint and Several Liability: This
provision would hold mineral owners
and their lessees jointly and severally
liable for all obligations to comply with
E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM
04NON1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 214 (Friday, November 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76960-76961]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26690]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
[NPS-MWR-KNRI-21917; 16XP103905-PPWODESCP1-PMP00UP05.YP0000-
PX.PD171326E.00.1]
Notice of Availability of the Draft Archeological Resources
Management Plan, Environmental Impact Statement, Knife River Indian
Villages National Historic Site, North Dakota
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) announces the availability of
the Draft Archeological Resources Management Plan/Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), Knife River Indian Village National Historic Site
(Park), North Dakota.
DATES: All comments must be postmarked or transmitted not later than
January 3, 2017.
ADDRESSES: A limited number of hard-copies of the Draft EIS may be
picked up in-person or may be obtained by making a request in writing
to Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site, P.O. Box 9,
Stanton, North Dakota 58571. The document is also available on the
internet at the NPS Planning, Environment, and Public Comment Web site
at: https://Parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectID=34314
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Superintendent Craig Hansen can be
reached at the address above, by telephone at (701) 745-3741 (ext.
209), or via email at craig_hansen@nps.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This process has been conducted pursuant to
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
and the regulations of the Department of the Interior (43 CFR part 46).
The purpose of the plan is to provide a management framework for
proactive, sustainable archeological resource protection at the Park
for the next 30 years. The NPS has identified four major threats to
archeological resources. While riverbank erosion is the most visible
and documented threat to archeological resources, additional impacts
occur from pocket gopher activity, vegetation encroachment, and
location of Park infrastructure.
Riverbank erosion has been an ongoing problem since the Park was
created and this ongoing impact has the greatest adverse effect to
archeological resources. Over the past few decades village remnants and
archeological sites adjacent to the Knife River have experienced
measurable erosion. In addition, Northern pocket gophers affect
archeological sites by displacing soil and artifacts from
chronologically stratified deposits. Also, the encroachment of woody
and overgrown vegetation into archeological sites causes multiple
issues for archeological sites. Root growth results in displacement of
chronological layers, similar to that of pocket gophers.
The maintenance facility for the Park is a visual intrusion in the
cultural landscape, particularly for the Big Hidatsa site, a designated
National Historic Landmark. The North Dakota State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation
(MHA Nation) Tribal Historic Preservation Office have recommended that
the facility be relocated to remove this visual impact from the site.
In addition, the maintenance facility is located near burial sites and
areas considered sacred by the tribes traditionally associated with the
resources present in the Park.
Finally, the location of the Museum Collection Storage Facility, in
the basement of the Visitor's Center, has had water infiltration
issues. A final goal of this plan is to develop a remedy for this
problem, or the storage facility will need to be replaced.
Range of Alternatives Considered: The alternatives analyzed in the
Draft EIS are summarized below.
Alternative 1: No-Action Alternative: Under the no-action
alternative, management of archeological resources at the Park would
continue as currently implemented.
Management would respond to archeological resource threats but
without the benefit of site prioritization and a proactive adaptive
management framework. Under the no-action alternative, existing Park
infrastructure would remain in place. Repairs to the existing visitor
center to address water infiltration issues would occur. Ongoing
riverbank erosion, pocket gopher control, and vegetation encroachment
management activities would continue.
Elements Common to All Action Alternatives: Under both action
alternatives, archeological resources management at the Park would be
executed within an adaptive management framework. This framework would
be used to address riverbank erosion, gopher control, and woody
vegetation encroachment. The project team developed a process to
prioritize archeological sites based on the importance of the resource
and the level of risk of loss of the resource to inform management
decisions.
The NPS has developed indicators and standards for managing the
archeological resources based on the Park's purpose, significance,
objectives, and desired conditions. These indicators and standards will
serve as a tool to monitor and evaluate the adaptive management
actions.
Alternative 2: Relocate Facilities in the Park: Under alternative
2, archeological resources would be managed under the adaptive
management framework described above. Under this alternative, the
maintenance facility would be moved to another location in the Park and
the existing maintenance buildings would be removed.
[[Page 76961]]
Additionally, the museum collection would be moved if the project
to stop water infiltration in the visitor center building is
unsuccessful or if the Park identifies funding or partnership
opportunities to relocate the museum collection out of the basement of
the Visitor's Center to a more suitable location.
Alternative 3: Locate Facilities Off-Site: Under alternative 3,
archeological resources would be managed under the adaptive management
framework described above. Under this alternative, the Park would
relocate the maintenance facility outside the Park boundary and remove
the existing maintenance buildings from the Park landscape. Similar to
alternative 2, the museum collection would be moved if the project to
stop water infiltration in the visitor center building is unsuccessful
or if the Park identifies funding or partnership opportunities to
relocate the museum collection out of the basement to a more suitable
location.
NPS Preferred Alternative: The preferred alternative is likely to
be a combination of alternatives 2 and 3. The NPS would prefer to
remove the maintenance facility from Park property, and stop water
infiltration at the visitor center so the museum collection can remain
in place. While moving the maintenance facility off-site is preferred
to best protect Park resources, the ability to relocate is dependent on
the availability of suitable property at a reasonable price. If
suitable sites are not available when the Park is ready to relocate,
the Park will construct the facilities within the Park.
In order to comment on this plan, comments may be transmitted
electronically through the project Web site (address above). If
preferred, you may mail written comments directly to the Superintendent
at the address above.
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.
Dated: September 9, 2016.
Patricia S. Trap,
Deputy Regional Director, Midwest Region.
[FR Doc. 2016-26690 Filed 11-3-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-52-P