National Park Service – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

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.

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.

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.

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].

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.

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.

Pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(C), the National Park Service announces the availability of a Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Fire Management Plan, Saguaro National Park, Arizona.

The National Park Service (NPS) Volunteers-In-Parks (VIP) program (Pub. L. 91-357) is collecting information from volunteers in the form of a survey for the purposes of evaluating the program and its effectiveness. In order to effectively manage the increasing trend of volunteerism in the NPS, it is imperative that the agency assess its strengths and weaknesses and determine methods for improved efficiency. A servicewide volunteer program assessment has not been conducted to date. Current VIPs will be surveyed (mail-back/Internet-based questionnaire) during this process to collect information about the current status and needs of the program. In addition, follow-up focus groups (3 with up to 20 participants each) and telephone interviews (up to 40) will be conducted to acquire detailed data expanding on questionnaire results). Recommendations for improvements will be made based on the findings. This process will not only aid in creating an improved, streamlined program, but may also serve as a model for other Federal agencies.

Notice is hereby given in accordance with Section 9.52(b) of Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 9, subpart B, that the National Park Service (NPS) has received from Krescent Energy Company, LLC, a Plan of Operations to conduct the Tyler 3-D ``Cable- Only'' Seismic Survey of the Upper Neches River Corridor Unit of Big Thicket National Preserve, within Tyler and Jasper Counties, Texas. The NPS has prepared a Categorical Exclusion on this proposal.

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(C), and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500-1508), the National Park Service has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed general management plan for Ebey's Landing National Historical Reserve (Reserve) located in northwestern Washington. In addition to a ``no-action'' alternative (which would maintain current management), the Draft EIS describes and analyzes two ``action'' alternatives which respond to public concerns and issues identified during the scoping process, as well as NPS's conservation planning requirements. These alternatives present varying management strategies that address visitor use and preservation of cultural and natural resources that protect and reflect the rural community on Whidbey Island from 19th century exploration and settlement in Puget Sound to the present time. The potential environmental consequences of each alternative, and mitigation strategies, are identified and analyzed; a determination as to the ``environmentally preferred'' alternative is also provided in the Draft EIS. Scoping: A Notice of Intent announcing preparation of the Draft EIS and general management plan was published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2000. Public involvement has included public meetings, presentations and meetings with organizations located within the Reserve and additional organizations, newsletter mailings, local press releases, website postings, and postcards. Preceding the formal EIS analysis process, the NPS had organized an interdisciplinary planning team to initiate the general management plan process for the Reserve. The team included the Reserve's Trust Board and staff, representatives from Washington State, Island County and Town of Coupeville, and NPS staff from the Pacific West Region Office in Seattle, Washington. The purpose of these initial meetings was to help characterize the scale and extent of the planning process. The formal public scoping efforts began in June 2000 with release of a scoping newsletter to approximately 650 people on the Reserve's mailing list. In addition, over 2800 newsletters were distributed at local public places such as libraries, civic buildings, businesses, and parks. The planning team received 36 letters during the official public scoping period ending August 15, 2000. In addition, during June 2000, three public scoping meetings were held in Seattle, Washington and Coupeville, Washington (in total, 141 verbal comments were recorded). Individual scoping meetings were also held between August 2000 and January 2001 with organizations located within the Reserve to discuss issues of mutual interest. Other meetings with other interested organizations were also scheduled. Proposed Plan and Alternatives: Alternative A constitutes the No- Action alternative and serves as an environmental baseline to facilitate comparisons between the ``action'' alternatives. Alternative A assumes that existing programs, facilities, staffing, and funding would generally continue at their current levels. The NPS would dispose of NPS-owned and managed farms within the Reserve to the private sector after placing conservation easements on them. Alternative B is the ``agency preferred'' alternative. The Reserve's Trust Board, and the NPS, in cooperation with partners, would enhance existing programs and resources management, as well as administrative, maintenance, and visitor services within the Reserve. To maintain and protect the rural landscape, the NPS would continue to purchase conservation easements on priority properties based upon a new land protection plan. The NPS would exchange NPS-owned farms to private farm owners for additional protection on other properties within the Reserve. Historic buildings would be rehabilitated to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. The county would be encouraged to develop a zoning overlay for the Reserve to aid in land use control. In addition, a minor boundary adjustment would be recommended. To orient and inform visitors about the Reserve, three gateway kiosks would be developed along State Route 20 and a visitor center/contact station would be operated within an historic building in Coupeville or within the historic district (three development concept plans for three sites are included). As documented in the Draft EIS this alternative is deemed to be ``environmentally preferred''. Alternative C changes the management structure of the Reserve from a Trust Board of volunteers to a paid Commission structure. Many actions are similar to Alternative B but with some distinctions. Approximately five acres of NPS-owned land at Farm II would be retained for administrative and maintenance use before exchanging the remaining farmland to a private farm owner for additional protection on other properties within the Reserve. One of the three gateways would be in a historic building in the north of the Reserve. The Reserve would partner for a visitor contact facility at a proposed marine science center. Public Review and Comment: The Draft GMP/EIS has now been released for public review, and a limited number of printed copies are available upon request (see below). In addition, the document may be reviewed at the public library in Coupeville. Also a Draft General Management Plan Alternatives Newsletter is being issued concurrently. Written comments may be submitted using several methods. Responses are encouraged online using the electronic comment form accessed at the NPS Planning, Environment and Public Comment System (https://parkplanning.nps.gov/ ebla). A postage-paid comment response form is included in the Alternatives Newsletter (additional pages may be attached to this form as necessary). Written comments may be directly mailed to: Rob Harbour, Reserve Manager, Ebey's Landing National Historical Reserve, P.O. Box 774, 162 Cemetery Road, Coupeville, WA 98239. In addition, oral comments may be offered at one of several public workshops to be conducted in fall, 2005. Confirmed details on dates, locations and times for these workshops will be announced in local newspapers, in the Alternatives Newsletter, via the park's website, or may be obtained by telephone at (360) 678-6084. All written comments must be postmarked or transmitted not later than 60 days after the EPA's notice of filing is published in the Federal Register (immediately upon confirmation of this date it will be announced on the park's website). All comments will become part of the public record. If individuals submitting comments request that their name or address be withheld from public disclosure, the request will be honored to the extent allowable by law. Such requests must be stated prominently in the beginning of comments. There also may be circumstances in which 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 individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses; and anonymous comments may not be considered. Decision: Following the opportunity to review the Draft EIS/GMP, all public and agency comments received will be carefully considered in preparing the final document. The Final EIS is anticipated to be completed during the Fall/Winter 2006 and its availability will be similarly announced in the Federal Register and via local and regional press media. As a delegated EIS, the official responsible for the final decision is the Regional Director, Pacific West Region; subsequently the approved plan would be implemented by the Trust Board, Ebey's Landing National Historical Reserve, in conjunction with the Reserve Manager.

In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the National Park and Recreation Act of 1978, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service have jointly prepared a Proposed Plan/Final EIS for the Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve. The Final EIS discusses public and agency comments received on the draft EIS. It describes and analyzes four alternative management strategies, each presenting a different approach to resolving issues identified through public scoping. Alternative A is the ``no action'' or continuation of present management alternative. Alternative B would promote more travel and access within the Monument. Alternative C would emphasize retention and enhancement of the Monument's primitive character. The Proposed Plan is Alternative D, the agency preferred alternative from the draft Plan/EIS, refined by public comment. Alternative D, which emphasizes protection and restoration of physical and biological resources, is also considered to be the environmentally preferred alternative.