Department of the Interior May 31, 2007 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of the draft economic analysis and draft environmental assessment, the reopening of the public comment period, and a public hearing on the proposed revised designation of critical habitat for the wintering population of the piping plover (Charadrius melodus) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We are reopening the public comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule and the associated draft economic analysis and draft environmental assessment. The draft economic analysis finds that costs associated with conservation activities for the wintering population of the piping plover in North Carolina are forecasted to range from $0 to $12.2 million in lost consumer surplus and $0 to $21.1 million in lost trip expenditures in undiscounted dollars over the next 20 years, with an additional $32,000 to $79,000 in administrative costs. Discounted impacts are estimated to range from $0 to $6.2 million in lost consumer surplus and $0 to $10.6 million in lost trip expenditures over 20 years using a real rate of seven percent, with an additional $17,000 to $42,000 in administrative costs. This amounts to $0 to $503,000 in lost consumer surplus and $0 to $861,000 in lost trip expenditures, annually. Using a real rate of three percent, discounted impacts are estimated at $0 to $8.9 million in lost consumer surplus and $0 to $15.4 million in lost trip expenditures over the next 20 years, with an additional $24,000 to $59,000 in administrative costs. This amounts to $2,000 to $600,000 in lost consumer surplus and $0 to $1.0 million in lost trip expenditures, annually. The draft environmental assessment finds that designation of critical habitat would not impose any physical alteration of the physical or biological communities used by the wintering population of the piping plover, nor would it alter any social, cultural, or recreational resources or the use of such resources beyond current conditions or existing management strategies. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted as they will be incorporated into the public record and fully considered in preparation of the final rule.

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the National Park Service is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Special Resource Study (SRS) for the Delaware Coastal Area in the state of Delaware. This SRS was authorized in Public Law 109-338 including its mandate for conformance with section 8(c) of Public Law 91-383. The purpose of an SRS is to determine the degree and kind of Federal actions that may be desirable for the management and protection of an area considered to have potential for addition to the National Park System. This is an SRS of the coastal region of the state of Delaware, and a study of the many themes that relate to how those resources were used throughout history in that region. The study area will include the entire coastal area of the state of Delaware. Additional sites or locations in Delaware may also need to be considered during the study process. The SRS/EIS will address a range of alternatives including any potential roles for the NPS in preservation and interpretation of the resources of the study area. Alternatives to be considered include: No action, the potential for congressional designation of all or part of the study area as a unit of the National Park system, and any other appropriate alternative that may arise during the study process. The EIS will assess the impacts of the alternatives presented in the SRS. The public scoping meetings will include a discussion of the SRS and the EIS process including ways that the public can be involved in providing and receiving information, and reviewing and commenting upon the draft study and associated draft EIS. The purpose of the meeting is to solicit public input prior to formally undertaking the study.

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(c)(C), the National Park Service announces the availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Quarry Visitor Center at Dinosaur National Monument, Colorado and Utah. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement contains five alternatives. Alternative ANo Action. The Quarry Visitor Center (QVC) was closed to the staff and public because of serious life safety issues caused by building instability on July 12, 2006. The QVC protected 1,500 dinosaur fossils in situ and provided access to the park's primary resource. The building would remain closed to the public; functions would remain displaced; and critical resources would be threatened. Alternative BPreferred AlternativeRehabilitate the Exhibit Hall and Construct a New Facility Off-site. The existing exhibit hall would be rehabilitated to adequately protect fossil resources and provide access to the public. Currently displaced functions would be constructed at a location off-site that has stable soil. Alternative CRetain the Exhibit Hall and Construct a New Facility at the Quarry Visitor Center. The exhibit hall would be rehabilitated to protect fossil resources and provide access to the public, and the currently displaced functions would be reconstructed on the unstable soil that has caused building movement for more than 50 years. Alternative DRetain the Exhibit Hall and Construct Wings Similar. The exhibit hall would be rehabilitated to protect fossil resources and provide access to the public. The remaining portions of the building would be reconstructed in the original footprint and dysfunctional configuration on the unstable soil that has caused building movement for more than 50 years. Alternative EDemolish the Entire Facility and Construct a New Facility at the QVC Site. The entire building would be demolished and rebuilt on the unstable soil that has caused building movement for more than 50 years. General Assumptions/Conditions that Apply to all Alternatives Engineers and architects estimate that only 10% of the historic fabric could be used for any of the alternatives. All alternatives would result in reconstruction, which is not an approved treatment under the Secretary's guidelines. Thus, the National Historic Landmark designation cannot be preserved under any alternative.