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

This document contains a correction to a final rule that was published Thursday, July 14, 2005 (70 FR 40660). The regulation relates to Deposit of Proceeds from Lands Withdrawn for Native Selection.

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

The Hillcrest Travel Plaza (applicant) has applied to the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for an incidental take permit pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The Service is considering the issuance of a 10-year permit to the applicant that would authorize take of the endangered San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) incidental to otherwise lawful activities. Such take would occur during the construction and operation of the applicant's proposed travel plaza in Fresno County, California. Construction of the proposed travel plaza would result in the loss of up to 9.27 acres of foraging and migration habitat for the San Joaquin kit fox. We request comments from the public on the permit application and an Environmental Assessment, both of which are available for review. The permit application includes the proposed Habitat Conservation Plan (Plan) and an accompanying Implementing Agreement. The Plan describes the proposed project and the measures that the applicant would undertake to minimize and mitigate take of the San Joaquin kit fox.

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 a general management plan for Lincoln Home National Historic Site (LIHO). The environmental impact statement will be approved by the Director, Midwest Region. The general management plan will prescribe the resource conditions and visitor experiences that are to be achieved and maintained at LIHO over the next 15 to 20 years. The clarification of what must be achieved according to law and policy will be based on review of the site's purpose, significance, special mandates, and the body of laws and policies directing park management. Based on determinations of desired conditions, the general management plan will outline the kinds of resource management activities, visitor activities, and development that would be appropriate in the future. A range of reasonable management alternatives will be developed through this planning process and will include, at a minimum, no action and the preferred alternative. Major issues to be addressed in the plan include: Issues surrounding preserving park resources (such as developing management strategies to preserve and maintain historic structures and cultural landscapes and protect archaeological sites in the face of a predicted increase in visitation); issues surrounding visitor understanding, education and appreciation of park resources (such as enhancing and expanding meaningful visitor experiences as alternatives to the LIHO tour); and, issues surrounding organizational effectiveness (such as identifying potential partnerships with the city of Springfield, the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum and others). Dates: Any comments on the scope of issues to be addressed in the EIS should be received no later than November 15. Public meetings regarding the general management plan will be held during the scoping period. Specific dates, times, and locations will be made available in the local media, on the LIHO Web site (https://www.nps.gov/liho), on the National Park Service Planning, Environment and Public Comment (PEPC) Web site (parkplanning.nps.gov/publicHome.cfm), or by contacting the Superintendent.

Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, as amended) and corresponding Council of Environmental Quality implementing regulations (40 CFR part 1500-1508), the National Park Service, Department of the Interior and its cooperating agencies have finalized a supplement to the Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration Implementation final environmental impact statement (1996 Implementation EIS). Two dams built in the early 1900s block the Elwha River and substantially limit anadromous fish passage. A 1996 Implementation EIS (second of two EISs that examined how best to restore the Elwha River ecosystem and native anadromous fishery in Olympic National Park) identified dam removal as the preferred option and identified a particular set of actions to remove the dams. The release of sediment from behind the dams would result in sometimes severe impacts to water quality or the reliability of supply to downstream users during the 3-5 year dam removal impact period, which the 1996 Implementation EIS proposed mitigating through a series of specific measures (see below). However, since 1996, when the Record of Decision was signed, new research and changes unrelated to the project have necessitated re-analysis of these measures. The primary purpose of this supplemental EIS (SEIS) is to analyze the potential impacts of a new set of water quality and supply related mitigation measures. Background: Elwha Dam was built on the Elwha River in 1911 and Glines Canyon Dam in 1925, limiting anadromous fish to the lowest 4.9 miles of river and blocking access to more than 70 miles of Elwha River mainstem and tributary habitat. The two dams and their associated reservoirs have also inundated and degraded important riverine and terrestrial habitat and severely affected fisheries habitat through increased temperatures, reduced nutrients, the absence of spawning gravels downstream and other changes. Consequently, salmon and steelhead populations in the river have been considerably reduced or eliminated, and the Elwha River ecosystem within Olympic National Park significantly and adversely altered. In 1992, Congress enacted the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act (Pub. L. 102-495) directing the Secretary of the Interior to fully restore the Elwha River ecosystem and native anadromous fisheries but also protecting municipal and industrial water users from the possible adverse impacts of dam removal. As noted above, the decisions associated with this process indicated removal of both dams was needed to fully restore the ecosystem. Impacts to water quality will result from the release of sediment which has accumulated behind the dams. Impacts to water supply will result from the release of fine sediment (i.e., silts and clays). These sediments can reduce yield by clogging the gravel that overlays subsurface intakes during periods of high turbidities. Increases in flooding or flood stage are also a likely result of dam removal, as sediments would replenish and raise the existing riverbed back to its pre-dam condition. The 1996 Implementation EIS proposed and analyzed numerous mitigation and flood controll measures to protect quality and ensure supply for each of the downstream users, which included: The installation of an infiltration gallery to collect water filtered from the riverbed; Open channel treatment of this water for industrial customers; Closure of the state chinook rearing channel during and for years following dam removal, with chinook production transferred to another state facility; The installation of a second subsurface Ranney collector on the opposite shore to maintain yield during meander away from the existing collector; A temporary package treatment plant to filter water from the Ranney wells during dam removal; Expansion of the tribal hatchery and of its infiltration gallery and drilling of groundwater wells to facilitate protection and production of Elwha anadromous fish for restoration, and; On-site flood protection for the Dry Creek Water Association wellfield, or connection of these users to the Point Angeles water system; The development of a mounded septic system on the Lower Elwha Klallam Reservation; and Strengthening and extension of the federal levee and other smaller levees and flood control structures. Continued study by the cooperating agencies since the 1996 Implementation EIS was finalized revealed the potential for unforeseen difficulties with some of the mitigation facilities, and identified different measures from those analyzed to resolve these difficulties. Further refining of the expected flood stage following the restoring of riverbed sediments also showed it would be higher in some areas of the river and lower in others than the original modeling predicted. In addition, changes in user needs resulting from factors unrelated to the project required a new look at some of the mitigation measures. For example, chinook salmon and bull trout have both been listed as threatened since 1997, resulting in the requirement to keep the state rearing facility open during dam removal. Also, the city of Port Angeles must now meet new standards for the treatment of its municipal supplies. In addition, an industrial customer (Rayonier) which required very high quality water for its operation has since closed. The low- lying lands of the Reservation have also been developed to such a degree since 1996 that a small mounded septic system would not be adequate. Proposal and Alternatives: The 1996 Implementation EIS focused on dam removal and sediment management and analyzed two action alternatives; it was tiered to an earlier programmatic EIS, which examined four options and a ``no action'' alternative for restoring the Elwha River ecosystem. Due to this extensive consideration of the overall project and its alternatives, the SEIS only analyzed the most preferable feasible alternative for mitigating impacts to water quality and supply in some cases. This is true of the facilities that would supply treated water for industrial, hatchery and municipal use. When several options with relatively equal value in protecting users from impacts to water quality or from flooding were available, each was analyzed in the SEIS. These include maintaining water quality for Dry Creek Water Association and Elwha Heights homeowners, upgrading the tribal hatchery, treating tribal wastewater, and providing flood protection mitigation for the tribal and other residents along the river. A discussion of alternatives for industrial, hatchery and municipal use that were not selected for analysis, and rationales for not carrying them further, is provided in the SEIS (Chapt.2) and in the Elwha River Water Quality Mitigation Project Planning Report (available at https://www.nps.gov/olym/elwha/home.htm). As documented in the Draft and Final SEIS, the proposal is deemed to be the ``environmentally preferred'' alternative; and it includes the following: The use of surface water rather than a subsurface infiltration gallery and additional Ranney well to supply the city's municipal and industrial customers, the tribal hatchery and the state chinook rearing channel. This change is intended to prevent ``blinding'', which research after 1996 found was likely to occur in any kind of subsurface water collecting facility. Blinding clogs and effectively seals the surface with fine sediment for a period of time, and can substantially reduce water yield. Removal of the existing rock dam and intake structure that currently supplies the city's industrial customers, and replacement with a graded fish riffle and weir structure to pass fish (``Elwha Water Surface Intake'' in the SEIS) and pool water. The existing intake will be replaced. A sediment removal facility (``Elwha Water Treatment Facility'' in the SEIS) built in the location of the existing industrial treatment channel on the east bank of the river, which will receive water for treatment from the weir and intake described above. This facility will supply industrial customers, and also at times a new water treatment facility during the 3-5 year dam removal impact period. A new permanent water treatment facility in Port Angeles (``Port Angeles Water Treatment Facility'' in the SEIS) adjacent to the city's existing landfill area, which will receive water from the sediment removal facility during and for a period of time following dam removal, and subsequently from the city's existing Ranney collector. Flood protection of the Dry Creek Water Association's existing wellfield. Connecting the Elwha Heights Water Association to the Dry Creek Water Association water delivery system to protect water quality of Elwha Heights water users. Relocation of the tribal hatchery to the Halberd parcel on Lower Elwha Klallam Tribal land, with water supplied from the Elwha Water Treatment Plant during the sediment release impact period. Keeping the state chinook rearing channel open during dam removal with water from the Elwha Water Treatment Plant during the sediment release impact period and creating a rearing pond on nearby Morse Creek as an additional rearing location for use during dam removal. Raising the federal levee an average of 3.3 feet (as compared to 2.5 feet in the 1996 Implementation EIS) and armoring with rock riprap where needed. The federal levee would be extended both north and south to provide additional protection from flooding following dam removal. The northward extension would be 450 feet in length; the southward extension would be a 1,650-foot route south and southeast across the Halberd property. This route includes use (raising and strengthening) of an existing levee haul road. A second levee across the river would also be raised. A series of small-scale flood protection measures, such as raising wellheads, dikes, roads or property to protect private citizens and existing facilities (Ranney collector, state WDFW fish-rearing facility, etc.) would be built. Most are similar or identical to those already analyzed in the 1996 Implementation EIS. Providing an on-reservation wastewater collection and treatment system to handle wastewater generated on the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe's reservation. Sections removed from Glines Dam would be transported to a private facility to be crushed and recycled if economics indicate this would be advantageous. If not, concrete would be disposed of in open pit mines and other locations evaluated in the 1996 Implementation EIS. A trail, overlook and chemical toilet available to all (including disabled) visitors would be built to observe the removal of Elwha Dam and offer future interpretive opportunities. Property and/or conservation easements would be purchased to offset impacts of dam removal to trumpeter swans. Each of these facilities is funded wholly or in part by the federal government to the extent that they provide mitigation from the effects of dam removal. Additional funding may be provided by homeowners groups or by other interested parties if protection or improvement beyond that resulting directly from dam removal is desired. The No Action alternative is the same alternative as was discussed in the 1996 Implementation EIS; that is, no dam removal would take place. Because the dams would remain, water and flooding mitigation would not be needed. Public Response to Draft SEIS: The draft SEIS was released for public review and comment in January 2005. Comments were received until March 15, 2005. The NPS received 8 letters and an Enviromental Protection Agency (EPA) evaluation of LO, or lack of objections (also noticed in the Federal Register on April 8, 2005). Commenters included the Washington Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Natural Resources, the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, the city of Port Angeles, Dry Creek Water Association, Inc., American Whitewater, Trout Unlimited, and Mr. Russ Busch, Tribal Attorney. Synopsis of Comments and Changes in Final SEIS: The state agencies primarily reminded the NPS that various permits to begin dam removal would be required. Three individuals from the Tribe submitted requests for changed language reflecting updates since the draft SEIS was released. Because the Tribe and city of Port Angeles have been unable to reach a final agreement on the acceptance of tribal wastewater to the city's treatment facility, a second alternative was added. This alternative would be located on tribal land and would use a membrane bio-reactor technology and constructed wetland to treat wastewater and minimize impact of any effluent. Effluent would be allowed to infiltrate into soil underlying the wetland, or would be released into the Elwha River. This is the preferred alternative, rather than connecting to the city of Port Angeles' wastewater treatment facility. The Tribe has also evaluated two different alignments for extending the federal levee to the south that would better mitigate impacts from flooding at this end of the reservation. These have been added to the text of the final SEIS, although the preferred alternative is one that was analyzed in the draft SEIS. Additional information on fisheries and vegetation issues that have no bearing on the decision of a preferred alternative, but which add to the completeness of the final SEIS, was suggested by the third tribal individual. The city of Port Angeles' comments were wide ranging: some requested additional clarification on measures to mitigate impacts (to industrial users, for example); others mentioned permitting and final clearances that would be required from the city; some asked for additional impact information, such as to Orca whales, socioeconomics, and current traffic conditions; and others debated accuracy of statements in the draft SEIS. Although additional impact information and clarity on mitigation measures has been added where NPS felt it was incomplete or would be helpful, no changes to the preferred alternative were necessitated as a result of the city's comments. Mr. Busch asked for additional information to be added to the description and impacts of the No Action alternative, as well as to the impacts of the preferred alternative. The added information would not affect selection of the preferred alternative or alter it in any way. American Whitewater asked that the safety of the new surface diversion facility (the Elwha Surface Water Intake) be evaluated so that access for recreational uses would be maintained along the entire river, and Trout Unlimited indicated support for several of the features of the preferred alternative. The diversion would be able to pass kayaks and other craft safely, and signs to indicate any hazard areas would be used to direct recreational users. Distribution of Final SEIS: Those who commented during the review period on the draft SEIS will receive a complete final SEIS document, as will agencies and others on the park mailing list (as noted in chapter 5 of the final SEIS). Others may request a paper copy of the final SEIS, a CD of the final SEIS and/or a CD of the full 1996 Implementation EIS which the subject document supplements. Please specify which of these documents/CDs is desired when contacting the Elwha Project Management Office. Finally, both the final SEIS and 1996 Implementation EIS will be posted on the Elwha project Web site at https://www.nps.gov/olym/elwha/home.htm. Decision Process: Following release of the final SEIS the NPS will wait for a minimum period of at least 30 days from the date this notice is published in the Federal Register before making a final decision on which mitigation facilities it will select. Therefore if there are interested persons or organizations wishing to express any remaining concerns or comments on the content of the final SEIS, they should send them in writing to Dr. Brian Winter, Elwha Project Manager, at 826 East Front Street, Ste.A, Port Angeles, WA 98362; telephone inquires may be directed to (360) 565-1320. Faxed or electronic transmittals will be accept also (electronic comments should be sent to Brian Winter@nps.gov, and faxes may be sent to (360) 565-1325). If substantive new information is submitted that both (1) could not have been raised during scoping or the review of the draft SEIS and (2) that has bearing on the selection of the preferred mitigation alternative, the NPS will consider such information. Respondents are reminded that decisions or facts in the 1996 Implementation EIS are not subject to public review at this time. If any persons or organizations choose to respond, please include name and address (note that names and addresses of commenters 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. As a delegated EIS, the official responsible for the final decision is the Regional Director, Pacific West Region. Subsequently the official responsible for implementing the selected mitigation alternative is the Superintendent, Olympic National Park.

This information collection is in support of development of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Rappahannock National Wildlife Refuge. Under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, all national wildlife refuges are required to develop a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). A CCP is a document that provides a framework for guiding refuge management decisions. This planning process ensures the opportunity for active public involvement in the preparation and revision of comprehensive conservation plans. This information collection will inform the planning process by providing information to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the attitudes and opinions of local residents regarding Rappahannock National Wildlife Refuge and its management. Estimated Completion Time: 20 minutes. Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 1,000. Frequency: One time. Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 333 hours. Affected Public: Residents adjacent to the Rappahannock River Basin, Virginia.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has examined and found suitable for classification for lease or conveyance under the provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, approximately 5 acres of public lands in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. The Ten Mile Water and Sewer District proposes to use the land for office and warehouse space for the District.

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, and the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000 (Steens Act), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is initiating preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze and undertake the North Steens Ecosystem Restoration Project (North Steens Project).

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is providing the six-month notification to terminate all royalty rate reductions for stripper well properties under the regulations at 43 CFR 3103.4-2(b)(4). In addition, BLM is requesting comments on the financial conditions under which BLM would reestablish the benefit.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announce that a Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment (EA) for Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge is available. This CCP, prepared pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, describes how the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service intends to manage this refuge for the next 15 years.

Pursuant to section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the following requests are made:

The public is invited to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species and/or marine mammals.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plat of survey of the lands described below in the BLM-Eastern States, Springfield, Virginia, 30 calendar days from the date of publication in the Federal Register.

Northern Indiana Public Service Company and the Indiana- American Water Company, Inc. (Applicants) have applied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for a joint incidental take permit for one covered species pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The application addresses the potential for ``take'' of the endangered Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) from management activities associated with electric power transmission line, natural gas pipeline, and potable water pipeline right-of-ways in northern Lake and Porter Counties, Indiana. A conservation program to mitigate for the project activities would be implemented as described in the proposed Low Effect Habitat Conservation Plan (proposed Plan), which would be implemented by the Applicants. We are requesting comments on the permit application and on the preliminary determination that the proposed Plan qualifies as a ``Low-Effect'' Habitat Conservation Plan, eligible for a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has reconsidered the Finding of No Significant Impact signed on March 24, 2004, for the proposed reconstruction of BIA Route 4 near Fort Thompson, South Dakota. This notice advises the public that the BIA intends to gather the information necessary to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the reconstruction project. The purpose of the proposed action is to improve the roadway to modern safety standards. This notice also announces two public scoping meetings to identify potential issues, concerns and alternatives to be considered in the EIS.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is again proposing to amend its mineral resources regulations to increase many fees and to impose new fees to cover BLM's costs of processing certain documents relating to its minerals programs. This would include costs for actions such as environmental studies, monitoring activities, and other processing-related costs. The BLM would establish some fixed fees and some fees on a case-by-case basis. The proposed fee changes are based on statutory authorities, which authorize BLM to charge for its processing costs, and on policy guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of the Interior (DOI) requiring BLM to charge these fees. The fee changes also respond to recommendations issued in audit reports by the DOI's Office of Inspector General (OIG).

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the reopening of the comment period on the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Central population of the California tiger salamander and the availability of the draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat. The draft economic analysis identifies potential costs of approximately $367 million over a 20-year period or $32.8 million per year as a result of the designation of critical habitat, including those costs coextensive with listing. We are reopening the comment period 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 preparation of the final rule.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is preparing a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment (EA) document for Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, and Sutter National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) which are part of the Sacramento NWR Complex (NWRC). This notice advises the public that the Service intends to gather information necessary to prepare a CCP and an EA pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The public is invited to participate in the planning process. The Service is furnishing this notice in compliance with the Service's CCP policy to: 1. Advise other agencies and the public of our intentions; 2. Obtain suggestions and information on the scope of issues to include in the environmental documents; and The Service will solicit information from the public via open houses, meetings, and written comments. Special mailings, newspaper articles, and announcements will provide information regarding opportunities for public involvement in the planning process.

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

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announces the date and location of the 2005 Federal Duck Stamp contest, which is open to the public. This notice is a follow-up to our March 4, 2005, Federal Register notice, in which we gave background information on the contest and preliminary information on this year's contest (70 FR 10671).

This rule implements provisions of the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 by revising the regulations governing proceeds from public lands withdrawn for Native selection under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for reinstatement from Freeman Investments of oil and gas lease WYW152214 for lands in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law.

This notice is an invitation to participate in Coal Exploration program. Ark Land Company has filed the application for the Granger Ridge Tract. All qualified parties are invited to participate with Ark Land Company on a pro rata cost sharing basis in its program for the exploration of certain Federal coal deposits in the following described lands in Carbon County, Utah:

A 39.99 acre parcel of public land in San Bernardino County, California is being considered for direct sale to Searles Valley Minerals, Inc. to resolve an unauthorized use of public land. This land is difficult and uneconomic to manage as part of the public lands and is not suitable for management by another Federal agency.