Cape Cod National Seashore; Two Hundred Fifty-Fifth Notice of Meeting; Correction
The National Park Service published a document in the Federal Register of October 5, 2005 concerning the Two Hundred Fifty-Fifth Notice of Meeting of the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission. The document contained an incorrect date.
National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission; Notice of Public Meeting
Notice is hereby given that a meeting of the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission (the Commission) will be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2005, at 1:30 p.m., at the National Building Museum, Room 312, 401 F Street, NW., Washington, DC. The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss currently authorized and proposed memorials in the District of Columbia and its environs. In addition to discussing general matters and conducting routine business, the Commission will review the status of legislative proposals introduced in the 108th Congress to establish memorials in the District of Columbia and its environs, as follows:
National Preservation Technology and Training Board-National Center for Preservation Technology and Training: Meeting
Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. Appendix (1988)), that the Preservation Technology and Training Board (Board) of the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training, National Park Service will meet on Monday, October 31, 2005, in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The Board was established by Congress to provide leadership, policy advice, and professional oversight to the National Park Service's National Center for Preservation Technology and Training (National Center) in compliance with section 404 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 470x-2(e)). The Board will meet in the De Vargas Room of the Hotel St. Francis at 210 Don Gaspar Avenue, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501telephone (505) 983-5700. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and end no later than 5 p.m. The Board's meeting agenda will include: National Center response to hurricanes Katrina and Rita; review and comment on National Center operational priorities for FY 2006; status of FY 2006 National Center budget and initiatives; development and launch of the Lee H. Nelson Prize in Historic Preservation Technology; proposed Wingspread Conference on Sustainability in Preservation; and Board workgroup reports. The Board meeting is open to the public. Facilities and space for accommodating members of the public are limited, however, and persons will be accommodated on a first come, first served basis. Any member of the public may file a written statement concerning any of the matters to be discussed by the Board. Persons wishing more information concerning this meeting, or who wish to submit written statements, may contact: Mr. John A. Burns, Acting Assistant Associate Director, Heritage Preservation Assistance Programs, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW., Room 2250 MIB, Washington, DC 20240telephone (202) 354-2118. Increased security in the Washington, DC area may cause delays in the delivery of the U.S. Mail or commercial delivery to government office buildings. In addition to U.S. Mail or commercial delivery, written comments may be sent by fax to Mr. Burns at (202) 371-6473. Minutes of the meeting will be available for public inspection no later than 90 days after the meeting at the office of the Acting Assistant Associate Director, Heritage Preservation Assistance Programs, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW., Room 2250 MIB, Washington, DC 20240telephone (202) 354-2118.
Announcement of a National Park Subsistence Resource Commission (SRC) Meeting for Gates of the Arctic National Park
The National Park Service (NPS) announces an SRC meeting within the Alaska Region for Gates of the Arctic National Park. The purpose of the meeting is to develop and continue work on subsistence hunting program recommendations and other related subsistence management issues. This meeting is open to the public and will have time allocated for public testimony. The public is welcomed to present written or oral comments to the SRC. The NPS SRC program is authorized under Title VIII, Section 808, of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Public Law 96-487, to operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Meeting minutes will be available for public inspection approximately six weeks after the meeting.
Final Environmental Impact Statement and General Management Plan for Crater Lake National Park, Douglas, Jackson & Klamath Counties, Oregon; Notice of Approval of Record of Decision
Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, as amended) and the regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1505.2), the Department of the Interior, National Park Service has prepared and approved a Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement and General Management Plan, Crater Lake National Park. The new GMP replaces the 1977 Master Plan, and will serve as a blueprint for guiding operations, resource protection, and visitor services in the park for the next 10-15 years. The requisite no-action ``wait period'' was initiated June 10, 2005, with the Environmental Protection Agency's Federal Register notification of the filing of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Decision: As soon as practical the National Park Service will begin to implement the actions and programs identified and analyzed as the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) contained in the FEIS. This alternative was deemed to be the ``environmentally preferred'' alternative. This course of action and three alternatives (including no-action) were identified and analyzed in the Final and Draft Environmental Impact Statements (the opportunity for public review of the latter was announced in the Federal Register on August 3, 2004). The full range of foreseeable environmental consequences was assessed, and appropriate mitigation measures have been identified. Copies: Interested parties desiring to review the Record of Decision may obtain a copy by contacting the Superintendent, Crater Lake National Park, P.O. Box 7, Crater Lake, Oregon 97604; or via telephone request at (541) 594-2211.
Minor Boundary Revision at Fort Moultrie Unit of Fort Sumter National Monument
Notice is given that the boundary of the Fort Moultrie Unit of Fort Sumter National Monument has been revised pursuant to the Acts specified below to encompass lands depicted on drawing 392/92,002A of Fort Sumter National Monument (which includes Fort Moultrie) prepared by the National Park Service. The revision to the boundary includes tract 01-109, as depicted on the map.
Notice of Availability of Draft National Park Service Management Policies
The National Park Service (NPS) is proposing to update the policies that guide the management of the national park system. The policies are being updated to improve their clarity and to keep pace with changes in laws, regulations, socio-economic factors and technology. The revised policies will also improve understandings among NPS managers, and between NPS managers and the public, regarding how decisions are made in protecting park resources and providing opportunities for public enjoyment of the parks. Public comment is invited for a 90-day period, which closes January 19, 2006.
Pursuant to the terms of existing concession contracts, public notice is hereby given that the National Park Service intends to request a continuation of visitor services for a period not-to-exceed 1 year from the date of contract expiration.
Pursuant to 36 CFR 51.23, public notice is hereby given that the National Park Service proposes to extend the following expiring concession contracts for a period of up to one year, or until such time as a new contract is executed, whichever occurs sooner.
60-Day Notice of Intention To Request Clearance of Collection of Information: Opportunity for Public Comment
The National Park Service (NPS) Office of International Affairs (OIA) proposes to collect information from property owners who volunteer for their properties to be included in a list of sites (Tentative List) that will be considered for nomination by the United States to the World Heritage List. In order to manage the U.S. World Heritage Program (37 CFR 73) effectively and in a timely manner NPS must prepare and submit through the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of State to the World Heritage Centre by February 1, 2007, a Tentative List of properties that appear to meet the criteria for nomination to the World Heritage List and which the United States intends to nominate during the ensuing decade (2007-2017). Only sites that have been found to be of national significance and that have such legal protections as are necessary to ensure the preservation of the properties and their environment may be considered for nomination by the United States. By law, all property owners must also concur in any World Heritage nomination. In order to gather the required information for the preparation of the Tentative List, it is proposed that an expanded and annotated version of the ``World Heritage Nomination Format'' (or form, hereinafter referred to as the ``Application'') be made available to owners who wish to apply for inclusion in the U.S. Tentative List. It would be made available on the Internet at https://www.nps.gov/oia and https://www.georgewright.org. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and 5 CFR part 1320, Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, the NPS invites comments on the need for and proposed manner of gathering the information in the study. Comments are invited on: (1) The practical utility of the information being gathered; (2) the accuracy of the burden hour estimate; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of information collection to respondents, including the use of automated information collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Environmental Statements; Availability, etc.; Badlands National Park, SD
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 North Unit of Badlands National Park (BADL).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement; Reconstruction of the Furnace Creek Water Collection System; Death Valley National Park; Inyo County, CA; Notice of Availability
Pursuant to Sec. 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (Pub. L. 91-190, 42U.S.C. 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, as amended), and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40CFR Part 1500-1508), the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service and its cooperating agency have completed a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed reconstruction of the Furnace Creek water collection system at Death Valley National Park in Inyo County, California. The proposed project would rebuild the outdated water collection system in the Furnace Creek area to deliver a safe and reliable potable and nonpotable water supply to the park's main visitor use area. The draft EIS also describes and analyzes three alternatives and appropriate mitigation measures, and identifies an ``environmentally preferred'' alternative. Background: The National Park Service (NPS), Xanterra Parks and Resorts (Xanterra), and the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe (cooperating agency) are the primary water user groups in the Furnace Creek area. The Texas-Travertine Springs complex in the Furnace Creek area may be the most critical water resource in Death Valley National Park. This series of springs provides water for all of the human use needs in the park headquarters area; infrastructure in this area includes the primary NPS administrative offices and three campgrounds, two private resort/visitor services facilities owned and operated by Xanterra, and the offices and residences for the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe. The Texas- Travertine Springs complex also provides water that supports a riparian area, a biological community that includes habitat for a minimum of eight endemic special-status species, and a biologically and culturally-important mesquite bosque. The current water collection system consists of four water collection boxes at Travertine Springs, a collection gallery in Furnace Creek Wash, a tunnel for water collection constructed similar to a mine adit at Texas Springs, and a tunnel for water collection constructed similar to a mine adit at the Furnace Creek Inn. All water distributed by the existing collection system is potable, although much of the water is used for irrigation and other nonpotable purposes. The existing water collection system installed in the 1970's has become unreliable, subject to failure, and is nearing the end of its useful life-span. Many of the existing collection galleries have intermittently tested positive for coliform or E. coli bacteria, experienced unpredictable inputs of soil or organic matter, intermittently and unpredictably produced reduced volumes of water, and collected groundwater that does not meet state drinking water standards. When the system was installed approximately 30 years ago, there was an incomplete understanding of the Furnace Creek area's unique biological resource values and water conservation strategies were not a priority. Proposal and Alternatives: The NPS proposes to rebuild the antiquated water collection system in the Furnace Creek area to deliver safe and reliable drinking water to the park's main visitor use area, and provide separate delivery systems for potable and nonpotable water. Desired redevelopment of the Furnace Creek water collection system includes efforts to restore historic wetland and riparian habitat, and ensure the long-term conservation of species endemic to the Furnace Creek area. The draft EIS identifies and analyzes four alternatives for reconstructing the Furnace Creek water collection system. Alternative 1 (``no action'') would result in continued operation and maintenance of the existing water collection system. Under this alternative, the Furnace Creek water collection system would remain in its existing condition. Necessary maintenance and repairs would continue, but no major undertakings (e.g., maintenance activities) would occur. Alternative 1 would provide potable water from collection galleries at Travertine Springs Lines 2, 3, and 4, and Furnace Creek Wash. Nonpotable water would be provided from the Inn Tunnel. Riparian water would be released from Travertine Springs Line 1, Texas Springs, and the Inn Tunnel. Alternative 1 would continue to store water in the existing 2-million gallon and 500,000 gallon storage tanks. Potable water would continue to be disinfected at the 2-million gallon tank with chlorine. All three ``action'' alternatives would separate the potable and nonpotable water system in the project area, and provide nonpotable water from the Inn Tunnel and a Furnace Creek Wash collection gallery. These alternatives primarily differ in terms of how each would provide potable water to the Furnace Creek area. Alternative 2 would provide potable water from rebuilt collection galleries at Travertine Springs Line 3 and Line 4, and two to three new groundwater wells in the Texas Springs Syncline. Alternative 2 would treat potable water using a reverse osmosis water treatment plant. Riparian water would be released from Travertine Springs Line 1 and Line 2 and Texas Springs to restore historic wetland and riparian habitat. The restoration effort would include the incorporation of riparian water release measures that would reduce erosion and promote groundwater infiltration. Alternative 3 (agency preferred) would provide potable water from 4 to 6 new groundwater wells in the Texas Springs Syncline, and would treat potable water using a reverse osmosis water treatment plant. Riparian water would be released from all of Travertine Springs and Texas Springs to restore historic wetland and riparian habitat. The restoration effort would include the incorporation of riparian water release measures that would reduce erosion and promote groundwater infiltration. Alternative 4 would provide potable water from Travertine Springs Lines 2, 3, and 4 and Texas Springs, and would treat water using a reverse osmosis water treatment plant with supplemental water disinfection. Since the NPS would treat all potable water under this alternative (including bypass water), Travertine Springs would not require reconstruction of spring collection boxes or clearing and grubbing of vegetation from the spring area. Riparian water would be released from Travertine Springs Line 1 and Texas Springs to restore historic wetland and riparian habitat. The restoration effort would include the incorporation of riparian water release measures that would reduce erosion and promote groundwater infiltration. The draft EIS identifies and evaluates a full range of mitigation strategies, project design elements, and other measures to minimize environmental harm. In addition to identifying the agency-preferred alternative, based on the environmental impact analysis detailed in the draft EIS an ``environmentally preferred'' alternative is also evaluated. Scoping: Early public and agency participation has been incorporated in this conservation planning process. Death Valley National Park held public scoping and informal meetings in 2001 through 2004 to solicit ideas and concerns from park visitors, park staff, Native American groups, scientists, and government agencies. A notice of intent to prepare the Reconstruction of the Furnace Creek Water Collection System Draft Environmental Impact Statement was published in the Federal Register on November 20, 2000; the formal public scoping phase concluded on March 14, 2001. The public was notified about the public scoping process through the Federal Register announcement, local press releases, website postings, mailings, and the Furnace Creek Visitor Center newsletter. During 2001 the NPS held three public scoping meetings on January 30 (in Pahrump, Nevada), January 31 (in Death Valley National Park), and February 1 (in Independence, California). The purpose of these meetings was to: (1) Provide participants with an overview of existing conditions and the proposed action; (2) ask participants to identify key issues that should be analyzed during the environmental review and compliance process; and (3) provide an opportunity for participants to ask questions regarding project alternatives and the overall environmental review and compliance process. As a result of the public scoping process, two letters were received via U.S. mail. Issues identified during the public scoping process are summarized in the EIS under the Planning Issues section, in Chapter I, Purpose and Need. All comments received during the public scoping process have been duly considered in this EIS. In addition to public scoping, the park and its cooperating agency have also consulted with the Fish and Wildlife Service, Army Corps of Engineers, California State Historic Preservation Office, and Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. Comments: The draft EIS is now available for public review during a 60-day comment period. Persons wishing to express any new concerns about water management, facilities development, resource protection, or other pertinent aspects of the proposal are encouraged to do so; all responses should be sent to James T. Reynolds, Superintendent, Death Valley National Park, Death Valley, California 92328. Faxed or electronic comments are also acceptable (such transmittals may be sent to the park superintendent's attention at DevaSuperintendent@nps.gov or FAX (760) 786-3283). Written comments will also be accepted at NPS public meetings which are to be held November 15 and 16, 2005 at Pahrump, Nevada, and Death Valley, California. As soon as meeting venues are confirmed, details will be posted on the park's Web site and publicized via local and regional press (and may be obtained by contacting the park at (769) 786-3243). All written comments must be postmarked (or transmitted) no later than 60 days from the date that the Environmental Protection Agency posts its notice of filing in the Federal Register (immediately upon confirmation, this date will be announced on the park's Web site and via local and regional press media; this information will also be available at the park's telephone contact at (760) 786-3243). Please note that names and addresses of people who comment become part of the public record. If individuals commenting request that their name or[bs]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. Printed or compact disk copies of the draft EIS will both be available. Please specify which document format you would like to receive when calling, e-mailing, or faxing Death Valley National Park. The draft EIS also can be viewed on the internet at www.nps.gov/deva/ pphtml/documents.html or reviewed at several public libraries. Decision Process: Following careful consideration of all comments as may be received, a final EIS will be prepared. Not sooner than 30 days following release of the final EIS a Record of Decision would be prepared. At this time its anticipated that project construction may begin during winter, 2007. As a delegated EIS the approving official is the Regional Director, Pacific West Region of the National Park Service; subsequently the official responsible for project implementation would be the Superintendent, Death Valley National Park.
Committee for the Preservation of the White House; Notice of Public Meeting
Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act that a meeting of the Committee for the Preservation of the White House will be held at the White House at 11 a.m. on Friday, October 28, 2005.
Consultation on regulations regarding the disposition of unclaimed Native American cultural items excavated or discovered on Federal or tribal lands after November 16, 1990, pursuant to provisions of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)
This notice announces three consultation meetings that will be held to obtain oral and written recommendations on regulations to be drafted regarding the disposition of unclaimed Native American cultural items that are excavated or discovered on Federal or tribal lands after November 16, 1990 [43 CFR 10.7].
Notice of Availability of Draft Director's Order Concerning National Park Service Policies and Procedures Governing Donations and Fundraising, Director's Order #21
The National Park Service (NPS) is revising existing policies and procedures that guide its acceptance of donations and its relationships to those who desire to raise private sector support to benefit parks and programs. When adopted, the policies and procedures will apply to all units of the national park system, and will supersede and replace the policies and procedures temporarily re-issued in January, 2005.
Bureau of Reclamation Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Clean Water Coalition Systems Conveyance and Operations Program; Lake Mead National Recreation Area; Clark County, NV; Notice of Availability
Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the corresponding Council of Environmental Quality implementing regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-08), the National Park Service and Bureau of Reclamation, as lead agencies for the Department of the Interior, announce the availability of the Clean Water Coalition Systems Conveyance and Operations Program (SCOP) Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Consistent with applicable laws and National Park Service and Bureau of Reclamation regulations and policies, the Draft SCOP EIS describes and analyzes four alternatives including the no action alternative. The Draft SCOP Environmental Impact Statement evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with three action (pipeline) alternatives, as well as a No-Action (no pipeline) Alternative. The three action alternatives include an Effluent Interceptor (EI) and Lake Conveyance System (LCS) that would collect and convey the highly treated effluent from the three treatment facilities to the Las Vegas Wash at a point upstream of Lake Las Vegas or to Lake Mead. The action alternatives would allow for flexible management of the highly treated effluent. A controlled amount of effluent would continue to be discharged to the Las Vegas Wash at each facility or at the EI Terminus. The discharge amount, velocity, and direction from the LCS diffuser would also be flexibly operated depending on the conditions of Lake Mead. The Draft SCOP EIS evaluates effects of the alternatives on both visitor experience and park resources including: surface water hydrology, groundwater, water quality, biological resources/endangered species, cultural resources, recreation, land use, air quality, noise, socioeconomics, and other appropriate resource issues identified during the public scoping phase. An impairment analysis was also conducted for the portion of the proposed actions located on land administered by the National Park Service (NPS). Purpose and Need For Federal Action: The purpose of implementing the proposal is to put into operation a treatment and conveyance system that will allow for flexible management of wastewater flow in the Las Vegas Valley, while maintaining water quality standards. Clark County, Nevada is one of the fastest growing counties in the U.S., and it is projected that the population in the area will be approximately 3,130,000 by 2035. The quantity of effluent treated and discharged in the Las Vegas Valley will increase as the population of the Valley increases. The treatment and conveyance facilities must accommodate the additional flows while continuing to meet current or future water quality standards for the Las Vegas Wash, Las Vegas Bay, and Lake Mead. The Clean Water Coalition proposes to build and implement a system that provides maximum flexibility for management of treated effluent to: Meet current and future water quality standards for known pollutants, and as yet unknown standards for additional contaminants that may be regulated in the future; Protect and enhance the Lake Mead National Recreation Area (LMNRA) by continuing to meet beneficial uses and recreational and resource values of the LMNRA, while more than doubling the treated effluent flows discharged to Lake Mead; Recognize Lake Mead's likely lowering water levels, which are important because the amount of mixing and dilution available in the inner Las Vegas Bay are also decreasing as the Lake level decreases; and Avoid possible impacts to source-water quality at the Southern Nevada Water System intake structures. Alternatives To Be Considered: The alternatives in the Draft SCOP EIS include expansions of the three treatment plants and the continued discharge of current and projected effluent flows to the Las Vegas Wash, with the use of conventional treatment processes to meet water quality standards (no action alternative); and construction and operation of a pipeline that would transport highly treated effluent from the three treatment facilities to a receiving area underwater within the Colorado River system (three action alternatives). In addition to the No Action Alternative, the NPS and Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) have analyzed the potential impacts of three action alternatives: the Boulder Islands North Alternative, the Boulder Islands South Alternative, and the Las Vegas Bay Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the Clean Water Coalition would not construct pipelines to transport effluent from the treatment facilities. The three treatment agencies (City of Las Vegas, City of Henderson, and Clark County Water Reclamation District) would expand their facilities to handle the increasing quantities of wastewater through 2050. Current, conventional treatment processes and plant optimization would be used to meet the requirements set by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting program. Facility expansions and modifications would occur on lands currently owned by the City of Las Vegas, Clark County, and City of Henderson. Under the Boulder Islands North Alternative and the Boulder Islands South Alternative, the three treatment agencies would expand their facilities to handle the increasing quantities of wastewater through 2050, and current, conventional treatment processes and plant optimization would be used to meet water quality requirements. A pipeline would be constructed to convey highly treated effluent from the three treatment facilities to an alternate discharge location in the vicinity of the Boulder Islands in Lake Mead. The majority of the Boulder Islands North LCS and the Boulder Islands South LCS would be installed in a tunnel through the River Mountains. Under the Las Vegas Bay Alternative, the three treatment agencies would expand their facilities to handle the increasing quantities of wastewater through 2050, and current, conventional treatment processes and plant optimization would be used to meet water quality requirements. A pipeline would be constructed to convey highly treated effluent from the three treatment facilities to an alternate discharge location in the Las Vegas Bay in Lake Mead. Public Review and Comment: The Draft SCOP EIS will be available for public review for 60 days following the publication in the Federal Register of the Environmental Protection Agency's notice of the filing of this document (immediately upon confirmation of this date it will be announced on the LMNRA Web site and via local and regional press media). The NPS and BOR will hold public meetings to obtain oral comments during a two-week period in October 2005, as follows: October 17, Henderson Convention Center, 200 S. Water Street, Henderson, NV from 6:30-8:30 p.m. October 18, West Las Vegas Library, 951 W. Lake Mead Blvd., Las Vegas, NV from 6:30-8:30 p.m. October 19, West Flamingo Senior Center, 6255 W. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV from 6:30-8:30 p.m. October 20, Summerlin Library, 1771 Inner Circle Drive, Las Vegas, NV from 6:30-8:30 p.m. October 24, Powerhouse Visitors Conference Center, 120 W. Route 66, Kingman, AZ from 6-8 p.m. October 25, Tempe Mission Palms Hotel, 60 E. 5th Street, Tempe, AZ from 6-8 p.m. October 26, Hilton Suites, 10 E. Thomas Road, Phoenix, AZ from 6-8 p.m. October 27, Radisson in Mission Valley, 1433 Camino Del Rio South, San Diego, CA from 6-8 p.m. October 28, Hyatt Regency Conference Center, 285 N. Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, CA from 6-8 p.m. All written comments on the Draft SCOP EIS must be postmarked or transmitted not later than 60 days after the EPA's notice of the filing published in the Federal Register; upon confirmation of this date it will be announced on the LMNRA Web site and via local and regional press media. Comments are to be addressed to the SCOP EIS Project Manager, PBS&J and may be sent either electronically to email@example.com, via facsimile at (702) 990-7262, or by mail to 2270 Corporate Circle, Suite 100, Henderson, NV 89074. 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. Copies of the Draft SCOP EIS may be obtained by contacting SCOP EIS Project Manager, PBS&J, 2270 Corporate Circle, Suite 100, Henderson, NV 89074 (or e-mailing to firstname.lastname@example.org or telephone (702) 263-7275 extension 3014). The document will also be posted on the Internet at https://www.cleanwatercoalition.com, as well as made available at public libraries in the following locations: NevadaBoulder City Library, Las Vegas Public Library, Searchlight Library, Community College of Southern Nevada, Sahara West Library, Mesquite Library, University of Nevada-Las Vegas, James I. Gibson Library, Clark County Library, James R. Dickinson Library, Moapa Valley Library, Green Valley Library, Sunrise Public Library, Laughlin Library. ArizonaBurton Barr Central Library, Tempe Public Library, University of Arizona Library, Meadview Community Library, Mohave County Library. UtahWashington County Library. CaliforniaEnvironmental Services Library in San Diego, Palm Springs Public Library. For further information about the public meetings or for obtaining copies of the document, please contact the SCOP EIS Project Manager, PBS&J, 2270 Corporate Circle, Suite 100, Henderson, NV 89074; e-mail email@example.com; or call (702) 263-7275 extension 3014. For additional information regarding the alternatives to be considered or other matters pertaining to the conservation planning and environmental impact analysis process, please contact: Mr. Michael Boyles, National Park Service, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, 601 Nevada Way, Boulder City, NV 89005, telephone (702) 293-8978; or Mr. Anthony Vigil (LC-2621), Bureau of Reclamation, P.O. Box 61470, Boulder City Nevada 89006-1470, telephone (702) 293-8674. Decision: After public review of the Draft SCOP EIS, the National Park Service and Bureau of Reclamation will carefully assess and consider all written comments and information obtained at the public meetings. A Final SCOP EIS will be prepared, which at this time is anticipated to be completed during summer 2006. Subsequent to release of the Final SCOP EIS and following a 30-days ``no action'' waiting period a Record of Decision will be prepared.
Isle Royale National Park Wilderness and Backcountry Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement; Correction
In the December 28, 2004, Federal Register, the National Park Service (NPS) announced the availability of the draft wilderness and backcountry management plan/draft environmental impact statement (WBMP EIS) for Isle Royale National Park. Due to technical review delays the document will not be available until October. Correction: The draft WBMP EIS will be made available for public review for 60 days following the publishing of the notice of availability in the Federal Register by the Environmental Protection Agency. The NPS will notice the draft WBMP EIS availability in local media. The NPS will notice the Draft WBMP EIS availability and public meetings in local media and on the Planning, Environment, and Public Comment Web site at the following address: https://parkplanning.nps.gov/ publicHome.cfm.
National Capital Region
The National Park Service is seeking public comments and suggestions on the planning of the 2005 Christmas Pageant of Peace.
Draft South Denali Implementation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement
The National Park Service (NPS) announces the availability of the Draft South Denali Implementation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Denali National Park and Preserve. The document describes and analyzes the environmental impacts of a preferred alternative and one action alternative for expanding visitor facilities and access opportunities in the south Denali region. A no action alternative also is evaluated. This notice announces the 60-day public comment period and solicits comments on the draft plan and EIS.
Environmental Impact Statement; Notice of Availability
Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the National Park Service (NPS) announces the availability of the stream management plan draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for Herbert Hoover National Historic Site, Iowa.
Utah Museum of Natural History, Environmental Impact Statement, University of Utah and National Park Service and as Joint Lead Agencies, Salt Lake County, UT
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332 (C) and (D) (NEPA), the University of Utah and the National Park Service as Joint Lead Agencies, are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the construction and operation of a proposed new Utah Museum of Natural History museum facility at the University of Utah, Salt Lake County, Utah. The NEPA process is being followed because federal funds, as grants through the National Park Service, are contributing to the design and construction costs of the new museum facility. The EIS will identify potential environmental effects of construction and operation of the proposed 169,000 square foot museum building, parking, and related appurtenances and mitigation measures to minimize adverse environmental impacts on the 17-acre site provided to the Museum by the University of Utah. This site is near the University of Utah's Research Park, south of Red Butte Gardens and Arboretum in Salt Lake County, Utah. The Utah Public Lands Artifact Preservation Act, Pub. L. 107-329, enacted in 2002, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to make a grant to the University of Utah to pay the Federal share of the costs of construction of a new facility including design, planning, furnishing, and equipping of the Museum. Seventy-five percent of the Museum's collection is material recovered from federally managed public lands including lands administered by the National Park Service. In January 2005, the Museum initiated an Environmental Assessment on the proposed project. After completion of public scoping and the identification of issues, the agencies decided to prepare an EIS. The EIS will analyze the proposed action, a no action alternative, alternative approaches to site and facilities design and placement, and other reasonable alternatives, if any, identified during the NEPA process. The EIS will also consider mitigation measures to minimize potential adverse environmental effects. Based on current information it is not expected that the EIS alternatives will include alternative sites for the museum facility, for several reasons. (1) The University of Utah and the Museum concluded a site selection process in 1995, and in 1997 the University of Utah Board of Trustees reserved the Research Park site for use by the Museum. Since that time considerable resources have been devoted to site planning, and substantial private, state and federal financial commitments have been received for design, construction and operation of a museum on the designated site. It would not be practical or economically feasible for the Museum to abandon this site for an alternative location. (2) Congress, in enacting the 2002 Utah Public Lands Artifact Preservation Act and in making subsequent appropriations, contemplated that the new museum would be located at the 17-acre Research Park site and it authorized and has since appropriated funding for a facility at that site. (3) If the new museum were built at an alternative location, the Research Park site would nonetheless still be developed, meaning that there would not likely be a decrease in overall impacts. Issues that were identified by the public during scoping for the EA and that will be addressed in the EIS include: vegetation and wildlife; recreation and trail use; open space, visual quality and aesthetics; traffic, transportation and parking; socioeconomics/cultural; air quality; soils, geological and seismic concerns; surface and groundwater quality and management; consideration of alternative sites; hazardous materials; and archaeological, cultural, historic and paleontological resources. Scoping for the EA was conducted February 15 through March 16, 2005 with a scoping meeting on March 8. The meeting was widely publicized and was attended by over 90 members of the public. Approximately 350 comments were received by letter or email. A scoping brochure has been prepared that details the issues identified to date. Copies of the brochure may be obtained from the project's NEPA contractor, Bear West, 145 South 400 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, phone (801) 355-8816. The scoping brochure along with a request for any additional scoping comments is being mailed to the project mailing list including those who attended the initial scoping meeting or submitted written comments. One or more workshops, open houses or similar meetings may be conducted during preparation of the EIS. Because there was a well attended public meeting during scoping for the EA, no additional public meetings are planned as part of the EIS scoping process. For questions regarding the proposed action, contact Utah Museum of Natural History, Sarah George, Director, 1390 E. Presidents Circle, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-0050. For questions regarding NEPA compliance, contact National Park Service, Cordell Roy, Utah State Coordinator, 324 South State Street, Suite 200, Box 30, Salt Lake City, UT 84111.
Fire Management Plan, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chiricahua National Monument, AZ
Pursuant to Sec. 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 83 Stat. 852, 853, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the National Park Service announces the availability of the Record of Decision for the Fire Management Plan, Chiricahua National Monument, Arizona. On August 2, 2005 the Director, Intermountain Region approved the Record of Decision for the project. As soon as practicable, the National Park Service will begin to implement the Preferred Alternative contained in the FEIS issued on July 1, 2005. The following course of action will occur under the preferred alternative, the Watershed Alternative. This course of action and 2 alternatives were analyzed in the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements. The full range of foreseeable environmental consequences was assessed, and appropriate mitigating measures were identified. The Record of Decision includes a statement of the decision made, synopses of other alternatives considered, the basis for the decision, a description of the environmentally preferable alternative, a finding on impairment of park resources and values, a listing of measures to minimize environmental harm, and an overview of public involvement in the decision-making process.