Department of the Interior June 2005 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), announce the reopening of the comment period on the proposal to designate critical habitat for four vernal pool crustaceans and eleven vernal pool plants in California and Southern Oregon, and the availability of the draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat. The economic analysis identifies potential costs of approximately $992 million over or 20-year period or $87.5 million per year as a result of the designation of critical habitat, including those costs coextensive with listing. We are reopening the comment period for the proposal to designate critical habitat for these species to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule and the associated draft economic analysis. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted as they will be incorporated into the public record as part of this comment period, and will be fully considered in the preparation of the final rule.

In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Alaska Resource Advisory Council will meet as indicated below.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces that a Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Turnbull National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) is available for review and comment. This Draft CCP/EA, prepared pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, describes the Service's proposal for managing the Refuge for the next 15 years. Proposed changes to Refuge management include: adding an elk hunting program; adding a youth waterfowl hunt; establishing a land conservation program with potential Refuge expansion; and expanding the interpretive, environmental education, wildlife viewing, and wildlife photography facilities and programs. The draft compatibility determinations for several different public uses are also available for review with the Draft CCP/EA.

As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that an appealable decision approving lands for conveyance pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act will be issued to St. Michael Native Corporation. The lands are located in T. 23 S., Rs. 17 & 18 W., Kateel River Meridian, in the vicinity of St. Michael Alaska, and contain 8.467 acres. Notice of the decision will also be published four times in the Nome Nugget.

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are submitting this collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for approval and renewal.

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (as amended) the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), as lead Federal agency, has prepared a FEIS for the Central Valley Project Long-Term Water Service Contract RenewalsAmerican River Division. The FEIS describes and presents the environmental effects of four alternatives, including no action, for renewal of water service contracts to American River Division contractors that include; the City of Roseville, East Bay Municipal District, El Dorado Irrigation District, Placer County Water Agency, Sacramento County Water Agency, Sacramento Municipal Utilities District, and San Juan Water District. A Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was published in the Federal Register on January 19, 2005 (70 FR 3066). The written comment period on the DEIS ended on March 21, 2005. The FEIS contains responses to all comments received and reflects comments and any additional information received during the review period.

The National Park Service (NPS) announces that the public comment period for the Revised Draft Backcountry Management Plan, General Management Plan Amendment, and Environmental Impact Statement for Denali National Park and Preserve, published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 (70 FR 103), has been extended to July 15, 2005. The original comment period was through June 30, 2005.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is issuing this notice to advise the public that it intends to gather the information necessary to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement/Habitat Conservation Plan (EIS/HCP) regarding an application from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (INDNR), Division of Forestry (DoF), Indianapolis, Indiana for an incidental take permit for two covered species pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The permit would allow the incidental take primarily of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), but also the gray bat (Myotis grisescens), on State Forests and O'Bannon Woods State Park in the State of Indiana. This notice describes the conservation plan (proposed action) and possible alternatives, invites public participation in the scoping process for preparing the EIS/HCP, and identifies the Service official to whom questions and comments concerning the proposed action may be directed.

In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Eastern Montana Resource Advisory Council will meet as indicated below.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter, Service or we) proposed in an earlier document to establish annual hunting regulations for certain migratory game birds for the 2005-06 hunting season. This supplement to the proposed rule provides the regulatory schedule; announces the Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee and Flyway Council meetings; provides Flyway Council recommendations resulting from their March meetings; and provides regulatory alternatives for the 2005-06 duck hunting seasons.

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and pursuant to regulations of the President's Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22) the National Park Service will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a Comprehensive Site Plan for the Warner Valley area in Lassen Volcanic National Park. This notice supersedes a previous Notice of Intent which was published on April 4, 2003 (V68; N65; Pp16548-49) for a proposed Dream Lake Dam Management Plan. Subsequent to issuance of that notice it has been determined that future management of Dream Lake, located within Warner Valley, should be assessed as a part of a wider Warner Valley Comprehensive Site Plan (CSP). This notice hereby extends the scoping process and comment period; all comments received in response to the previous notice are documented in the project administrative record and need not be resubmitted. Background: The purpose of the CSP/EIS will be to determine the desired future resource conditions in Warner Valley and outline the steps that will be taken in order to achieve those conditions. The CSP/ EIS will evaluate the natural and cultural resources, aesthetics, and visitor experience in this area of the Park. Some topics that have already been identified as needing to be assessed include: (1) Future management of Dream Lake Dam, (2) impacts on wetlands, (3) historic structures, (4) protection of Drakesbad Meadow and Fen, (5) alternative energy, (6) water and sewage systems, (7) parking, (8) trail system, (9) accessibility, (10) safety, and (11) effluent from the horse corral (currently going into the meadow). The CSP will guide the management of Warner Valley over the subsequent 10-15 years. Comments: Persons wishing to comment or express concerns on the management issues and future management direction of these lands should address their written responses to the Superintendent, Lassen Volcanic National Park, P.O. Box 100, Mineral, California 96063 (comments can also be e-mailed to: lawplanning@nps.gov). All comment letters must be postmarked or transmitted not later than 30 days following the date this notice is published in the Federal Register (immediately upon confirmation of that date, it will be announced on the park Web site: https://www.nps.gov/law). Please note that names and addresses of people who comment become part of the public record. If individuals commenting request that their name or/and address be withheld from public disclosure, it will be honored to the extent allowable by law. Such requests must be stated prominently in the beginning of the comments. There also may be circumstances wherein the NPS will withhold from the record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. As always: the NPS will make available to public inspection all submissions from organizations or businesses and from persons identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations and businesses; and, anonymous comments may not be considered. At this time it is anticipated that three public workshops to hear additional comments and suggestions will be conducted in mid-June in the towns of Red Bluff (June 13), Chester (June 14), and Vacaville (June 15), California. The confirmed meeting times and locations will be posted on the park's website and announced via press release to local newspapers. Questions regarding the plan or scoping sessions should be addressed to the Superintendent either by mail to the above address, or by telephone at (530) 595-4444. Decision: At this time it is anticipated that the Draft EIS/CSP would be released for public review during the spring of 2006, and depending on the nature and extent of public comment the Final EIS/CSP would be completed in winter of 2006. As a delegated EIS, the official responsible for the final decision is the Regional Director, Pacific West Region, National Park Service; subsequently the official responsible for implementing the approved plan would be the Superintendent, Lassen Volcanic National Park.

Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the National Park Service (NPS) announces the availability of the draft general management plan and environmental impact statement (GMP/ EIS) for the Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial (Memorial).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announces that the Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment (EA) is available for Detroit River IWR, Michigan. The CCP was prepared pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Goals and objectives in the CCP describe how the agency intends to manage the Refuge over the next 15 years.

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for wind energy development in eleven western states, excluding Alaska, that also proposes to amend 52 land use plans.

We are announcing the receipt of revisions pertaining to a previously proposed amendment to the Alaska regulatory program (hereinafter, the ``Alaska program'') under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Alaska proposes revisions to its rules concerning revegetation of areas with a fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, shelter belts, or forest products post mining land use; subsidence and water replacement; bond release applications; topsoil removal; the removal of siltation structures; impoundment design; coal mine waste; and mining of coal incidental to the extraction of other minerals if the coal is 16\2/3\ percent or less of the total tonnage of minerals removed. Alaska intends to revise its program to be consistent with the corresponding Federal regulations and incorporate the additional flexibility afforded by the revised Federal regulations.

Notice is given that the Tribal-State Compact between the Otoe-Missouria Tribe and the State of Oklahoma is considered to have been approved and in effect.

With this notice, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, we) reopen the public comment period on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP), Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and Draft Wilderness Stewardship Plan (Plan) for the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge in Pima and Yuma Counties, Arizona. We also intend to announce upcoming public meetings, at which we will receive comments.

This provides notice of the Federal Subsistence Board's in- season management actions to protect sockeye salmon escapement in the Copper River, while still providing for a subsistence harvest opportunity and to provide for a more efficient harvest method for chinook salmon in the Stikine River. The revised fishing schedule for the Chitina Subdistrict of the Copper River and net mesh size revision will provide an exception to the Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska, published in the Federal Register on March 21, 2005. Those regulations established seasons, harvest limits, methods, and means relating to the taking of fish and shellfish for subsistence uses during the 2005 regulatory year.

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(C), the National Park Service is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for Middle Fork Avalanche Hazard Reduction for Glacier National Park, Montana. This effort will result in agreed upon methods to reduce the avalanche hazard to trains and personnel that travel through the John Stevens Canyon between mile post 180 and 192 on State Highway 2, adjacent to the boundary of Glacier National Park. The Burlington Northern Santa-Fe Railroad runs along the southern boundary of Glacier National Park on Flathead National Forest lands. These lands are under a Right-of-Way. The avalanche paths that threaten the trains and personnel are within Glacier National Park. Alternatives to be considered include (1) No-Action, (2) Snow Sheds in all Chutes and an Avalanche Monitoring Program (but no triggering or stability testing), (3) Combination of Snow Sheds and Avalanche Monitoring, Stability Testing and Triggering, (4) No New Sheds and Ongoing Avalanche Monitoring Stability Testing and Triggering and (5) Temporary Avalanche Monitoring, Stability Testing and Triggering Until Snow Sheds are Constructed. The No Action alternative will consider the affects of maintaining the existing sheds avalanche monitoring and continued use of the existing avalanche sensor wires. Alternative 2 will consider the effects of constructing five new sheds and adding onto six existing sheds. Avalanche monitoring would be ongoing, but no stability testing or triggering would occur after sheds are constructed. Alternative 3 will consider a combination of snow sheds and monitoring, stability testing and triggering of avalanches when snow conditions indicate. Alternative 4 will consider only using avalanche monitoring, stability testing and triggering. Alternative 5 will consider the temporary use of avalanche stability testing and triggering until snow sheds are constructed. Avalanche monitoring would continue to occur. Major issues include avalanche stability testing and triggering within proposed wilderness in Glacier National Park, impacts to threatened and endangered species known to use the area, winter recreational use in the area, protection of resources from accidental freight spills caused by avalanches, and safety for the public and personnel in the area. Amtrak travels daily through the area. A scoping letter has been prepared. Copies may be obtained from Superintendent, PO Box 128, Glacier National Park, West Glacier, Montana 59936 or by calling 406-888-7901. Information may also be obtained from https://parkplanning.nps.gov/.

Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the National Park Service (NPS) announces its intent to prepare a General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (GMP/EIS) for Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park, located in Frederick, Shenandoah, and Warren Counties of Virginia. The park consists of 3,000 acres that comprise significant portions of the Cedar Creek Battlefield, a decisive battle in the Civil War, and Belle Grove Plantation, an antebellum manor house listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In the enabling legislation for the park, Congress established a Federal Advisory Commission to advise in the preparation of a GMP, and key partner organizations who may continue to own and manage properties within the park. Prepared by planners at the park and in the NPS Northeast Region, with assistance from advisors and consultants, the GMP/EIS will propose a long-term approach to managing Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park.

Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, as amended), the Council of Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR part 1500), and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1271), the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, has prepared the Final Merced Wild and Scenic River Revised Comprehensive Management Plan and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS). It is intended to amend and supplement the Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (Merced River Plan/FEIS) released in June 2000. The Final Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS identifies and evaluates four alternatives for guiding management of the Merced Wild and Scenic River within the jurisdiction of the National Park Service in Yosemite and the El Portal Administrative Site. Potential impacts and appropriate mitigation measures are assessed for each alternative. When approved, the plan will serve as a template for all future decisions relating to recreation and land use within the 81-mile Merced River corridor on both the main stem and South Fork. The primary goals of the plan are to ensure the free-flowing condition of the river, along with providing long-term protection and enhancement of what the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act calls the river's ``Outstandingly Remarkable Values'' the unique qualities that make the river worthy of special protection. Purpose and Need for Federal Action: The Merced River Plan is the official document for guiding future management of the main stem and South Fork of the Merced Wild and Scenic River within the jurisdiction of the National Park Service (NPS). In August 2000, the Merced River Plan/FEIS was approved (the Record of Decision was subsequently revised in November 2000). Shortly after the Record of Decision was signed, the plan became the subject of a lengthy litigation process. In April 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit directed the NPS to prepare a ``new or revised'' comprehensive management plan that addresses two deficiencies identified in the Court's October 27, 2003 opinion (Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 803 9th Cir. 2003). The Court ruled that: (1) The revised plan must implement a user capacity program that presents specific measurable limits on use, and (2) the revised plan must reassess the river corridor boundary in the El Portal Administrative Site based on the location of Outstandingly Remarkable Values. The programmatic guidance identified herein would revise and supplement the Merced River Plan/FEIS and the park's 1980 General Management Plan. Proposed Plan and Alternatives: In the proposed Revised Merced River Plan, Alternative 2 (agency preferred alternative) would include all of the elements of the No Action Alternative, with the addition of implementing the Visitor Experience Resource Protection (VERP) user capacity component, along with interim limits on some park facilities; the El Portal segment boundary would be redrawn to a quarter-mile on either side of the river. In addition to this proposed plan, the Final Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS identifies and analyzes three other alternatives: Alternative 1No Action; Alternative 3Segment Limits with VERP Program; and Alternative 4Management Zone Limits with VERP Program. Alternative 2 has also been deemed to be the ``environmentally preferable'' alternative. The No Action Alternative represents a baseline from which to compare the three action alternatives. Under Alternative 1, the Merced River Planas detailed in the 2000 Record of Decision (and subsequent revision)would continue to guide management in the river corridor. Application of its management elements (boundaries, classifications, Outstandingly Remarkable Values, management zoning, River Protection Overlay, Section 7 determination process) would continue as presented in the plan. However, a program of standards and indicators under the Visitor Experience Resource Protection (VERP) framework would not be in place and the park would continue managing user capacity under existing programs and policies outlined in the February 2004 User Capacity Program for the Merced Wild and Scenic River Corridor. This program includes continuation of the current wilderness management program and existing Wilderness Trailhead Quota System. Alternative 1 would implement the narrow boundary for the El Portal segment as described in the selected alternative of the Merced River Plan/FEIS (100-year floodplain or River Protection Overlay [whichever is greater] along with adjacent wetlands). Alternative 3 would also include all of the elements from the No Action alternative, in addition to a VERP user capacity component (as described in Alternative 2), along with a maximum daily limit for each river segment and an annual visitation limit of 5.32 million; the El Portal segment would have the maximum quarter-mile boundary. Alternative 4 would contain the elements of No Action in addition to a VERP user capacity component (as described in Alternative 2), along with limits for each river management zone and an annual visitation limit of 3.27 million; the El Portal segment boundary would be drawn according to the location of Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Planning Background: The draft and final Revised Merced River Plan/ SEIS were prepared pursuant to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and National Environmental Policy Act. On July 27, 2004, a Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement was published in the Federal Register. At this time, a 30-day scoping period was initiated. In response to public comment, this scoping period was extended to September 10, 2004. During scoping, a series of public meetings were held. A letter from the Superintendent was sent to over 8,000 interested members of the public on the park's Planning Mailing list, encouraging them to submit ideas, issues, and concerns relating to the scope of this planning effort. In addition, the scoping period and associated public meetings were publicized via regional media, on the park's Web site, through emailed notices on the park's electronic newsletter, and on various state-wide online bulletin boards. Over 100 letters, faxes, and emails were received and considered during the development of the Draft Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS. All written scoping comments, as well as oral testimony from public hearings, can be viewed on the park's Web site (https://www.nps.gov/yose/planning/mrp/ revision). A scoping report is also available. On January 14, 2005, a Notice of Availability for the Draft Merced Wild and Scenic River Revised Comprehensive Management Plan Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement was published in the Federal Register. The public review period continued through March 22, 2005. Approximately 1,500 printed copies and 600 CD-ROM versions of the draft SEIS were mailed to interested individuals and organizations. In February and March 2005, a series of public meetings was held in locations throughout California to discuss the draft document. During the public comment period, eleven public meetings were hosted throughout California between February 22, 2005 and March 7, 2005. Meetings were held at El Portal, San Francisco, Burbank, Oakhurst, Mammoth Lakes, Sacramento, Fresno, Merced, Mariposa, Groveland and in Yosemite Valley. An additional Open House was hosted in Yosemite Valley prior to the end of the public comment period. Each public meeting was set up to allow for (1) informal conversations between park staff (including consultants) and the public, (2) a presentation by park staff on the plan's proposed elements, and (3) a formal public hearing attended by a court reporter. The public was encouraged to submit written comments on the Draft Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS via letter, email or fax. Attendees could also leave written comments on comment forms provided at the meetings. The NPS contacted local, regional, and national media outlets, issued press releases that were faxed and emailed to media outlets and phone calls that were made to newspaper and news reporters to generate interest in the plan. In addition, paid newspaper advertisements were placed in the Mariposa Gazette, the Sierra Star (Oakhurst, CA), the Union Democrat (Sonora, CA), the Merced Sun-Star and the Mammoth Times. Paid public notices were placed in the San Francisco Chronicle, the L.A. Times, the Sacramento Bee, and the Fresno Bee. Numerous stories about the plan and the schedule of public meetings appeared in local and regional newspapers. In addition, several project fact sheets were posted on the park's Web site; fliers were posted on community bulletin boards, post offices, and local businesses in communities where public meetings were hosted; and press release announcements were included in the park's Daily Report throughout the entire comment period. The park specifically initiated dialogue with several interested local parties. These included park employees and their families, Delaware North Companies Parks and Resorts at Yosemite (primary concessioner) employees and residents, and park partner staff such as the Yosemite Institute, the Yosemite Association, and The Yosemite Fund. In addition, there was extensive outreach within the local communities of El Portal and Wawona through participation at local Mariposa County Planning Advisory Committee meetings. The park also conducted a ``walking tour'' in El Portal to discuss the process for identifying Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the El Portal segment of the Merced River and the rationale for the various El Portal boundary alternatives. The NPS engaged gateway communities throughout the process through personal communications and meetings between the park staff and gateway community members. As a result of the public review period, the NPS received comments from 114 individuals, 25 organizations, 6 government agencies, 2 tribes and 1 university, including public testimony given by individuals at public meetings. Over 900 individual comments were received. The analysis of these comments generated about 400 concerns statements, which were categorized and considered for incorporation in the planning process. The public comments received and transcripts from the public hearings are available for viewing on the park Web site (https:// www.nps.gov/yose/planning/mrp/revision). The Public Comment Analysis and Response Report is included as Appendix F in the Final SEIS. Distribution of Final Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS: A mail-back postcard was sent to all individuals and organizations on the park's general mailing list asking recipients if they would like to receive a printed copy or CD-ROM version (or both) of the Final Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS. This announcement also indicated that the plan would be available for viewing on the park's Web site (https://www.nps.gov/ yose/planning). Copies of the final plan will also be available at the National Park Service headquarters in Yosemite Valley, the Yosemite Valley Research Library, the National Park Service warehouse building in El Portal, and at a number local and regional libraries (listed in Chapter VI of the Final SEIS). Decision Process: Depending upon the response from other agencies, interested organizations, and the general public, at this time it is anticipated that a Record of Decision would be approved not sooner than at least 30 days have elapsed after publication by the EPA of their filing notice for the Final Revised MRP/SEIS. Notice of the approved decision will be posted in the Federal Register and announced in local and regional media. As a delegated EIS, the official responsible for the decision is the Regional Director, Pacific West Region, National Park Service; subsequently the official responsible for implementing the approved Revised Merced River Plan is the Superintendent, Yosemite National Park.

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321); the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701), as amended; and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the Burley, Idaho Field Office of the Twin Falls District of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), located in Cassia County, has prepared a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS)/resource management plan amendment (DEIS/ Amendment) to consider whether or not to grant a right-of-way and amend the 1985 Cassia Resource Management Plan (Cassia RMP).

To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), we are notifying the public that we have submitted to OMB an information collection request (ICR) to renew approval of the paperwork requirements in the regulations under 30 CFR 243. This notice also provides the public a second opportunity to comment on the paperwork burden of these regulatory requirements. We changed the title of this ICR to clarify the regulatory language we are covering under 30 CFR 243. The previous title of this ICR was ``30 CFR Part 243Suspensions Pending Appeal and Bonding.'' The new title of this ICR is ``30 CFR 243Suspensions Pending Appeal and BondingMinerals Revenue Management (Forms MMS-4435, Administrative Appeal Bond; MMS-4436, Letter of Credit; and MMS-4437, Assignment of Certificate of Deposit).''