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 http:// 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