Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Notices 47513 

include a statement that the nominator 

is so authorized. 

4. Information about nominees: All 

nominations must include the following 

information: 

a. nominee’s name, address, and 

daytime telephone number and e-mail 

address; and 

b. nominee’s resume or brief 

biography emphasizing the nominee’s 

NAGPRA experience and ability to work 

effectively as a member of an advisory 

board. 

Nominations that do not include all of 

the abovementioned information will be 

considered non-responsive to this 

solicitation. 

DATES: Nominations must be received 

by October 16, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Via U.S. Mail: Address 

nominations to Designated Federal 

Officer, Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Review 

Committee, National NAGPRA Program, 

National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW 

(2253), Washington, DC 20240. Because 

increased security in the Washington, 

DC, area may delay delivery of U.S. Mail 

to U.S. Government offices, a copy of 

each mailed nomination should also be 

faxed to (202) 371–5197. Via 

commercial delivery: Address 

nominations to C. Timothy McKeown, 

Designated Federal Officer, Native 

American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Review Committee, 

National NAGPRA Program, National 

Park Service, 1201 Eye Street NW, 8th 

floor, Washington, DC 20005. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

1. The Review Committee was 

established by the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

of 1990 (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3001 et 

seq. 

2. The Review Committee is 

responsible for—

a. monitoring the NAGPRA inventory 

and identification process; 

b. reviewing and making findings 

related to the identity or cultural 

affiliation of cultural items, or the return 

of such items; 

c. facilitating the resolution of 

disputes; 

d. compiling an inventory of 

culturally unidentifiable human 

remains and developing a process for 

disposition of such remains; 

e. consulting with Indian tribes and 

Native Hawaiian organizations and 

museums on matters within the scope of 

the work of the Review Committee 

affecting such tribes or organizations; 

f. consulting with the Secretary of the 

Interior in the development of 

regulations to carry out NAGPRA; and 

g. making recommendations regarding 

future care of repatriated cultural items. 

3. Seven members compose the 

Review Committee. All members are 

appointed by the Secretary of the 

Interior. The Secretary may not appoint 

Federal officers or employees to the 

Review Committee. 

a. Three members are appointed from 

nominations submitted by Indian tribes, 

Native Hawaiian organizations, and 

traditional Native American religious 

leaders. At least two of these members 

must be traditional Native American 

religious leaders. 

b. Three members are appointed from 

nominations submitted by national 

museum organizations and scientific 

organizations. 

c. One member is appointed from a 

list of persons developed and consented 

to by all of the other members. 

4. Members serve as Special 

Governmental Employees, which 

requires submission of annual financial 

disclosure reports and completion of 

annual ethics training. 

5. Appointment terms: Members are 

appointed for 4–year terms and 

incumbent members may be 

reappointed for 2–year terms. 

6. The Review Committee’s work is 

completed during public meetings. The 

Review Committee normally meets faceto-face two times per year, and each 

meeting is normally two or three days. 

The Review Committee may also hold 

one or more public teleconferences of 

several hours duration. 

7. Compensation: Review Committee 

members are compensated for their 

participation in Review Committee 

meetings. 

8. Reimbursement: Review Committee 

members are reimbursed for travel 

expenses incurred in association with 

Review Committee meetings. 

9. Additional information regarding 

the Review Committee, including the 

Review Committee’s charter, meeting 

protocol, and dispute resolution 

procedures, is available on the National 

NAGPRA program Web site, 

www.cr.nps.gov/nagpra (click ‘‘Review 

Committee’’ in the menu on the right). 

10. The terms ‘‘Indian tribe,’’ ‘‘Native 

Hawaiian organization,’’ and 

‘‘traditional religious leader’’ have the 

same definitions as given in 43 CFR 

10.2. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

C. Timothy McKeown, Designated 

Federal Officer, Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Review 

Committee, National NAGPRA Program, 

National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW 

(2253), Washington, DC 20240; 

telephone (202) 354–2206; e-mail 

timlmckeown@nps.gov. 

Dated: June 26, 2006 

C. Timothy McKeown, 

Designated Federal Officer, 

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Review Committee. 

[FR Doc. E6–13589 Filed 8–16–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4314–50–S 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

Final Environmental Impact Statement/ 

Non-Native Deer Management Plan 

Point Reyes National Seashore; Marin 

County, CA; Notice of Availability 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) 

of the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91–190, as 

amended), and the Council on 

Environmental Quality Regulations (40 

CFR part 1500–1508), the national Park 

Service, Department of the Interior has 

prepared a Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) identifying and 

evaluating five alternatives for a NonNative Deer Management Plan for Point 

Reyes National Seashore administered 

lands. When approved, the plan will 

guide the NPS in managing the herds of 

non-native deer over the next two 

decades on all lands administered by 

Point Reyes National Seashore. Through 

the FEIS, the potential impacts of a ‘‘no 

action’’ alternative and four ‘‘action’’

alternatives are assessed and, where 

appropriate, mitigation measures are 

applied to reduce the intensity of the 

potential effect or to avoid the potential 

effect. Five other preliminary 

alternatives were considered but 

rejected because they did not achieve 

the objectives of the non-native deer 

management plan or were infeasible. 

Planning Background 

Axis deer ((Axis axis) are native to 

India and European fallow deer (Dama 

dama) are native to Asia Minor and the 

Mediterranean region. Axis and fallow 

deer were introduced to the point Reyes 

area in the 1940s and 1950s by local 

ranchers, before establishment of the 

Seashore. Between 1976 and 1994, the 

NPS controlled the populations of the 

herds by shooting the deer and more 

than 2,000 non-native deer were culled 

during this 18-year period. Culling was 

discontinued in 1994 in response to 

budgetary and public concerns. For the 

past 16 years, the NPS has not actively 

managed the non-native deer and their 

numbers and overall range have 

increased to, or surpassed, pre-control 

levels. Seashore staff estimates current 

numbers of axis and fallow deer to be 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
47514 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Notices 

approximately 250 and 860, 

respectively. 

Description of the Planning Area 

The planning area for the Non-Native 

Deer Management Plan (NNDMP) 

includes NPS lands located 

approximately 40 miles northwest of 

San Francisco in Marin County, 

California. These lands include the 

70,046-acre Point Reyes National 

Seashore, comprised primarily of 

beaches, coastal headlands, extensive 

freshwater and estuarine wetlands, 

marine terraces, and forests; as well as 

18,000 acres of the Northern District of 

golden Gate National Recreation Area 

(GGNRA), primarily supporting annual 

grasslands, coastal scrub, and Douglasfir and coast redwood forests. Thirtyfive percent, or 32,000 acres, of 

Seashore lands are managed and 

protected as Wilderness. 

Purpose and Need for the Federal 

Action 

The primary problems resulting from 

the presence of non-native deer in the 

planning area are their interference with 

native species and native ecosystems; 

conflicts with the laws, regulations and 

NPS policies regarding restoration of 

natural conditions and native species; 

the impacts on ranchers in the parks; 

and by affecting park operations and 

budget. In addition there is the potential 

for each of these impacts to increase 

should deer populations expand beyond 

park boundaries. 

As a unit of the NPS, PRNS is 

governed by a set of laws, regulations 

and polices including the 2001 

Management Policies, and it is the set of 

rules as well as research data, standard 

biological and ecological peer-reviewed 

literature, and public and agency input 

that the park has used to develop the 

non-native deer management 

alternative. Management Policies 

Section 4.4.1.3 clearly defines ‘‘native 

species’’ as all species that have 

occurred or now occur as a result of 

natural processes on lands designated as 

units of the national park system. 

‘‘Exotic species’’ are those species that 

occupy park lands directly or indirectly 

as the result of deliberate or accidental 

human activities. Units of the NPS are 

charged to ‘‘re-establish natural 

functions and process in humandisturbed components of natural 

systems (sec 4.1.5).’’ The presence and 

recent population and range expansion 

of non-native axis and fallow deer in the 

park is adversely impacting many 

elements of the natural ecosystem 

including; competition with, and 

displacement of, native tule elk and 

black-tailed deer; the documented 

potential for transmitting disease to 

these native ungulates; and degradation 

of important riparian and oak woodland 

habitats. If the non-native deer continue 

to spread unabated, their expansion 

outside PRNS boundaries could result 

in these adverse impacts occurring to 

natural areas throughout Marin County. 

The objectives of theNNDMP are: 

• To correct past and ongoing 

disturbances to Seashore ecosystems 

from introduced non-native ungulates 

and thereby to contribute substantially 

to the restoration of naturally 

functioning native ecosystems. 

• To minimize long-term impacts, in 

terms of reduced staff time and 

resources, to resource protection 

programs at the Seashore, incurred by 

continued monitoring and management 

of non-native ungulates. 

• To prevent spread of populations of 

both species of non-native deer beyond 

Seashore and GGNRA boundaries. 

• To reduce impacts of non-native 

ungulates caused by direct consumption 

of forage, transmission of disease to 

livestock and damage to fencing to 

agricultural permittees within pastoral 

areas. 

Proposed Non-Native Deer Management 

Plan 

Alternative E has been identified as 

the preferred alternative in the Draft EIS 

and the FEIS. Under this alternative 

(Removal of All Non-Native Deer by a 

Combination of Agency Removal and 

Fertility Control), all axis and fallow 

deer in the planning area would be 

eradicated by the year 2021 through a 

combination of lethal removal and 

contraception. Culling would be 

conducted by NPS staff or contractors 

specifically trained in wildlife 

sharpshooting. The contraceptive 

program would incorporate the latest 

contraceptive technologies to safely 

prevent reproduction, for as long as 

possible, and with minimal treatments 

per animal. Because no long-acting 

‘‘sterilant’’ has been registered for use in 

wildlife by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), data on safe 

and efficacious use of a candidate drug 

would have to be submitted to the EPA 

by a sponsoring agency or research 

group before it could be used at PRNS 

on the basis of experimental 

management and population control. 

Population models of fallow deer at 

PRNS indicate that under this 

alternative, if the contraceptive used 

was effective in blocking fertility for at 

least 4 years, eradication could be 

accomplished with fewer fallow deer 

lethally removed. Because effectiveness 

of long-term contraceptives on axis deer 

is unknown, similar models are not yet 

developed for this species. Studies on 

sterilant efficacy and monitoring of deer 

population response to treatment will be 

used adaptively to guide or refine nonnative deer management activities. The 

goal will be to maximize benefits to 

natural resources and minimize safety 

risks to NPS staff, while striving to 

reduce numbers of animals killed. 

Principal Differences Between the Draft 

and Final EIS 

Wildlife monitoring in the PRNS is 

ongoing and the analysis in the FEIS on 

impacts of non-native deer has been 

supplemented by new information since 

the Draft EIS was published, including 

the following: A U.S. Geological Survey 

analysis of the impacts of non-native 

deer on native black-tailed deer (Fellers, 

2006), a U.S. Geological survey report 

on the impacts of ‘‘lekking’’ fallow deer 

to woodland and riparian vegetation 

and soils (Fellers and Osbourn, 2006), 

and a Humboldt State University report 

on dietary overlap between fallow deer 

and native tule elk (Fallon-McKnight, 

2006). Based on consideration of the 

results of these studies and other 

information, which elucidated the 

adverse impacts of non-native deer on 

natural resources, discussion in the 

FEIS of the following resource topics—

water resources, soils, vegetation, and 

wildlife impact—was revisited and 

conclusions about intensity were 

clarified. 

Information on wildlife contraceptive 

agents under development (e.g., 

GonaCon  and others) and costs has 

been updated. Information regarding 

contraceptive agents withdrawn from 

availability and changes in regulatory 

authority over these agents was added to 

the FEIS. This new information became 

available after release of the Draft EIS 

and was obtained from experts in the 

filed of wildlife contraceptive and from 

the EPA. 

Consideration of the recent studies 

and new information did not necessitate 

substantively altering the proposal, nor 

were conclusions about significant of 

foreseeable environmental 

consequences substantially changed. 

Alternatives to Proposed Plan 

The FEIS for the NNDMP analyzes 

four alternatives in addition to the 

preferred alternative. Alternatives E and 

D (Removal of all Non-Native Deer by 

Agency Removal) were both identified 

in the Draft EIS as ‘‘environmentally 

preferred’’ and are considered equally 

likely to best protect the biological and 

physical environment of the planning 

area. Both would strive to accomplish 

eradication of non-native deer within 20 

years and consequently would result in 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Notices 47515 

cessation of new adverse impacts 

caused by non-native deer to wildlife, 

vegetation, soils, special status species, 

water resources, and park operations. 

Alternative A—No Action. This 

‘‘baseline’’ alternative represents the 

current non-native deer management 

program. It would perpetuate the nonnative deer management practices 

undertaken since 1994, when ranger 

culling was discontinued. No actions to 

control the size of non-native deer 

populations would be taken. In order to 

ensure protection of native species and 

ecosystems, continued monitoring for at 

least 20 years would be an integral part 

of this alternative as well as all other 

alternatives considered. 

Alternative B—Control of Non-Native 

Deer at Pre-Determined Levels by 

Agency Removal. Alternative B would 

focus on the use of lethal control to 

reduce the size of non-native deer 

populations. Culling would be 

conducted by NPS staff or contractors 

specifically trained in wildlife 

sharpshooting. Non-native deer 

populations would be maintained at a 

level of 350 for each species (700 total 

axis and fallow deer). Because fallow 

deer concentrations are currently higher 

than this, and axis deer populations are 

lower than this target, the focus of 

initial reductions would be on fallow 

deer. This target population level was 

chosen because of its history, and for 

management reasons. However, the 

number would be re-evaluated by 

resource managers regularly and could 

be changed based on results of ongoing 

monitoring programs. Efforts would be 

made to reach target levels in 15 years 

and to ensure continued unharmful 

presence of both species in the 

Seashore. Because fallow deer numbers 

currently exceed 350 animals, and axis 

deer have historically done so, any 

chosen population control method 

would need to be used in perpetuity to 

maintain each species at this population 

size. Because the management time 

frame is very long (theoretically lasting 

forever), the total numbers of deer 

lethally removed could be very high, 

and operational and monitoring costs 

would not be minimized. 

Alternative C—Control of Non-Native 

Deer at Pre-Determined Levels by 

Agency Removal and Fertility Control. 

As in Alternative B, non-native deer 

populations would be maintained at a 

level of 350 for each species (700 total 

axis and fallow deer), but through a 

combination of lethal removals and 

fertility control. This target population 

level was chosen based on historical 

records and for management reasons. 

However, the targeted population 

number would be re-evaluated by 

resource managers regularly and could 

be changed based on results of ongoing 

monitoring programs and practical 

adaptive management. Culling would be 

conducted by NPS staff or contractors 

specifically trained in wildlife 

sharpshooting. The contraceptive 

program would be similar to that for 

Alternative E. 

Because fallow deer numbers are 

currently higher than 350, and axis deer 

populations are lower than this target, 

the focus of initial reductions would be 

on fallow deer. Efforts would be made 

to reach target levels in 15 years. 

Because the goal of this alternative will 

be to control axis and fallow deer at a 

specified level and not to eradicate them 

from PRNS, annual culling and fertility 

control would continue indefinitely, 

and operational and monitoring costs 

would not be minimized. Because the 

management time frame is very long 

(theoretically lasting forever), the total 

numbers of deer removed and treated 

with contraceptives could also be very 

high under this alternative. 

Alternative D—Removal of All NonNative Deer by Agency Personnel. In 

Alternative D, all axis and fallow deer 

inhabiting PRNS and the GGNRA lands 

administered by the Seashore would be 

eradicated through lethal removal 

(shooting) by 2021 through annual 

shooting. Culling would be conducted 

by NPS staff or contractors specifically 

trained in wildlife sharpshooting. The 

management actions included in this 

alternative would continue until both 

species were extirpated, with a goal of 

full removal in a minimum of 13 years 

and no more than 20 years. In 

comparison to the alternatives that rely 

on contraception, Alternative D 

minimizes the overall total number of 

deer removed (a longer period of 

removal would mean more fawns are 

born and more total deer are killed), and 

is reasonable from a cost and logistics 

standpoint. Monitoring during program 

implementation would be done to assess 

program success and to guide 

adjustments in the location, intensity 

and logistics of removal. 

Actions Common to All Alternatives—

In order to ensure protection of native 

species and ecosystems and to assess 

success of any management program, 

continued monitoring for at least 15 

years would be an integral part of any 

alternative chosen. Regardless of the 

alternatives selected, all actions 

involving direct management of 

individual animals, ranging from aerial 

surveillance to live capture and lethal 

removal, would be conducted in a 

manner which minimizes stress, pain 

and suffering to every extent possible. 

All actions occurring within desginated 

Wilderness, from monitoring to active 

deer management, would be consistent 

with the minimum requirement concept. 

Summary of Public Engagement 

On December 5, 2001, representatives 

of public agencies were invited to attend 

an informational meeting at the 

Seashore, with the objective of 

conferring with those agencies about 

updating the park’s non-native deer 

management plan. On April 10, 2002, a 

Notice of Scoping was published in the 

Federal Register and in local 

newspapers. Public scoping comments 

were solicited at a public information 

meeting held at the Point Reyes Dance 

Palace on May 4, 2002. Written scoping 

comments were accepted through July 5, 

2002. All those who sent written 

comments dfurign the scoping period 

and who gave a return mailing address 

were included in the NNDMP mailing 

list. During the February–July 2002 

period, PRNS staff gave numerous 

presentations to local and state public 

groups on the NNDMP conservation 

planning process and provided 

background information on non-native 

deer. Audiences ranged from local 

homeowners and ranchers’ associations 

to local branches of national 

environmental and animal rights 

groups. 

The Draft EIS was made available for 

public review and comment for 63 days, 

from February 4, 2005 through April 8, 

2005. Midway through the public 

comment period, on March 3, 2005, an 

informational meeting was held int he 

Red Barn Classroom at Seashore 

Headquarters. Approximately 60 people 

attended the 3-hour meeting and posed 

questions to a panel of scientists and 

staff or expressed their concerns and 

preferences regarding the plan and 

management alternatives. Audience 

members were informed of a number of 

ways to submit comments on the 

NNDMP either that night at the meeting, 

or by mail/e-mail by April 8, 2005. 

Some comment letters arrived past the 

end of the comment period (up to April 

19, 2005) but were nontheless included 

as part of the public comment received. 

During the comment period, the NPS 

received a total of 1,980 peices of 

correspondence (including letters, emails, fascimiles, and hand-delivered 

comment forms), containing 4450 

individual comments. Ninety-four 

percent of the comments were sent in by 

individual members of the public and 

the remainder were received from 

environmental, professional, and 

recreational groups, civic organizations, 

and government agencies. All comments 

were carefully reviewed, and responses 

to substantive comments were prepared 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
47516 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 159 / Thursday, August 17, 2006 / Notices 

for inclusion in the FEIS. Where 

warranted, portions of the FEIS reflect 

edits to the Draft EIS text in response to 

salient recommendations from some 

commentors or to provide clarification 

in view of concerns brought up by the 

public. And as noted above, new studies 

and technical information not available 

prior to release of the Draft EIS are 

discussed. All comments received are 

included in the administrative record. 

In conformance with Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act, on March 26, 

2003, PRNS initiated the consultation 

process with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). On 

March 10, 2005, the park requested 

concurrence from USFWS with its 

finding that the proposed plan would be 

not likely to adversely affect nine plant 

and wildlife species or the proposed 

critical habitat for the California redlegged frog or adversely affect nine plant 

and animal species during 

implementation of the preferred 

alternative. On April 7, 2005, the 

USFWS concurred with the park’s 

findings that measures in the proposed 

plan are sufficient to reduce any direct, 

indirect, and cumulative effects to the 

nine listed species and proposed critical 

habitat to an insignificant or 

discountable level. With the issuance of 

this memo, the USFWS concluded its 

consultation process for the NNDMP. 

On March 28, 2005, PRNS transmitted 

a letter to the NMFS with regard to 

potential effects on listed anadromous 

fish species and fish habitat within the 

planning area. PRNS clarified that no 

proposed actions would take place in 

creeks, waterways, or riparian areas and 

therefore the proposed project is not 

likely to adversely affect central 

California coast environmentally 

significant unit (ESU) coho salmon, 

central California coast ESU steelhead, 

California coastal ESU Chinook salmon, 

Designated Critical Habitat for central 

California coast ESU coho salmon, or 

Essential Fish Habitat for coho salmon 

and Chinook salmon. NMFS concurred 

with the park’s findings in a letter to the 

NPS on May 3, 2005, ending the 

information consultation process. 

ADDRESSES: New requests for copies of 

the FEIS may be sent to the 

Superintendent, Attn: NNDMP, Point 

Reyes National Seashore, Point Reyes, 

CA 94956 (or by e-mail request to: 

Ann_Nelson@nps.gov—in the subject 

line, type: NNDMP). The document will 

be sent directly to those who received 

the DEIS or previously have requested 

it, and it is also available in electronic 

format at the NPS’s Planning, 

Environment, and Public Comment Web 

site http://parkplanning.nps.gov/pore. 

Both the printed document and digital 

version on compact disk will be 

available at the park headquarters and 

local libraries. Any correspondence 

regarding the NNDMP should be 

addressed to the Superintendent either 

by mail or e-mail (see addresses above). 

Please note that names and addresses of 

all respondents will become part of the 

public record. It is the practice of the 

NPS to make comments, including 

names, home addresses, home phone 

numbers, and e-mail addresses of 

respondents, available for public 

review. Individual respondents may 

request that we withhold their names 

and/or home addresses, etc., but if you 

wish us to consider withholding this 

information, you must state this 

prominently at the beginning of your 

comments. In addition, you must 

present a rationale for withholding this 

information. This rationale must 

demonstrate that disclosure would 

constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of privacy. Unsupported 

assertions will not meet this burden. In 

the absence of exceptional, 

documentable circumstances, this 

information will be released. We will 

always make submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives of or officials or 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public inspection in their entirety. 

Decision 

As a delegated EIS, the official 

responsible for the final decision is the 

Regional Director, Pacific West Region. 

A Record of Decision, documenting the 

environmental decision-making process 

on the NNDMP will be prepared not 

sooner than 30 days following the 

publication in the Federal Register of 

the EPA’s notice of filing and 

availability of the Final EIS. 

Subsequently and prior to 

implementation, notice of approval of 

the Record of Decision will be posted in 

the Federal Register and announced via 

local and regional news media. 

Following approval of the Non-Native 

Deer Management Plan, the official 

responsible for implementation will be 

the Superintendent, Point Reyes 

National Seashore. 

Dated: April 7, 2006. 

Jonathan B. Jarvis, 

Regional Director, Pacific West Region. 

[FR Doc. 06–6973 Filed 8–16–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–FW–M 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

Landmarks Committee of the National 

Park System Advisory Board Meeting 

AGENCY: National Park Service, 

Department of the Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given in 

accordance with the Federal Advisory 

Commission Act and 36 CFR Part 65 

that a meeting of the Landmarks 

Committee of the National Park System 

Advisory Board will be held beginning 

at 1 p.m. on October 10, 2006 and at the 

following location. The meeting will 

continue beginning at 9 a.m. on October 

11. 

DATES: October 10–11, 2006. 

Location: The 2nd Floor Board Room 

of the National Trust for Historic 

Preservation, 1785 Massachusetts 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20036. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia Henry, National Historic 

Landmarks Program, National Park 

Service; 1849 C Street, NW. (2280); 

Washington, DC 20240; Telephone (202) 

354–2216. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

purpose of the meeting of the 

Landmarks Committee of the National 

Park System Advisory Board is to 

evaluate nominations of historic 

properties in order to advise the 

National Park System Advisory Board of 

the qualifications of each property being 

proposed for National Historic 

Landmark (NHL) designation, and to 

make recommendations regarding the 

possible designation of those properties 

as National Historic Landmarks to the 

National Park System Advisory Board, 

at its subsequent meeting at a place and 

time to be determined. The Committee 

also makes recommendations to the 

National Park System Advisory Board 

regarding amendments to existing 

designations, and proposals for 

withdrawal of designation. The 

members of the National Landmarks 

Committee are: 

Dr. Larry E. Rivers, Chair, 

Dr. James M. Allan, 

Dr. Cary Carson, 

Ms. Mary Werner DeNadai, FAIA, 

Dr. Alferdteen Brown Harrison, 

Mr. E. L. Roy Hunt, J.D., 

Mr. Ronald James, 

Dr. William J. Murtagh, 

Dr. William D. Seale, 

Dr. Jo Anne Van Tilburg. 

The meeting will be open to the 

public. Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 65, any 

member of the public may file, for 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES