67158 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Notices 

not be considered. There may be 

circumstances in which we would 

withhold from the record a respondent’s 

identity, as allowable by the law. If you 

wish us to withhold your name and/or 

address, you must state this 

prominently at the beginning of your 

comment. In addition, you must present 

a rationale for withholding this 

information. This rationale must 

demonstrate that disclosure ‘‘would 

constitute an unwarranted invasion of 

primary.’’ Unsupported assertions will 

not meet this burden. In the absence of 

exception, documentable circumstances, 

this information will be released. All 

submissions from organizations or 

businesses, and from individuals 

identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, will be 

made available for public inspection in 

their entirety. 

MMS Information Collection 

Clearance Officer: Arlene Bajusz, (202) 

208–7744. 

Dated: September 12, 2006. 

E.P. Danenberger, 

Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs. 

[FR Doc. E6–19514 Filed 11–17–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

Final General Management Plan and 

Comprehensive River Management 

Plan/Middle and South Forks of the 

Kings River and North Fork of the Kern 

River; Sequoia and Kings Canyon 

National Parks, Tulare and Fresno 

Counties, California; Notice of 

Availability of Final Environmental 

Impact Statement 

Summary: Pursuant to § 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 

(EIS) for the General Management Plan 

(GMP) and Comprehensive River 

Management for the Middle and South 

Forks Kings River and the North Fork 

Kern River and for Sequoia and Kings 

Canyon National Parks located in 

California. The purpose and need for the 

plans is to establish a park vision for the 

next 15–20 years, provide direction for 

the management of wild and scenic 

rivers, replace an outdated master plan, 

guide management of cultural and 

natural resources, address unresolved 

issues in specific areas, and address the 

changing context of the parks within the 

regional ecosystem. 

Proposed Plan and Alternatives: The 

final EIS describes and analyzes five 

alternatives which respond to both NPS 

planning requirements and to the issues 

identified during the public scoping 

process. The No-Action alternative 

would continue current management 

direction, and it is the baseline for 

comparing the other alternatives (it was 

originally Alternative B when the 

alternatives were first presented to the 

public in the winter of 2000). The 

Preferred Alternative would 

accommodate sustainable growth and 

visitor enjoyment, protect ecosystem 

diversity, and preserve basic character 

while adapting to changing user groups 

(this was also determined to be 

‘‘environmentally preferred’’). 

Alternative A would emphasize natural 

ecosystems and biodiversity, with 

reduced use and development; 

Alternative C would preserve the parks’

traditional character and retain the feel 

of yesteryear, with guided growth; and 

Alternative D would preserve the basic 

character and adapt to changing user 

groups. Also included is a 

comprehensive river management plan 

for the portions of the Middle and South 

Forks of the Kings River and the North 

Fork of the Kern River, which have been 

designated by Congress as components 

of the national wild and scenic rivers 

system. The purpose of the river 

management plan is to provide direction 

and overall guidance on the 

management of lands and uses within 

the river corridors. Regarding 

wilderness, although the GMP does 

address compatibility of the alternatives 

with the park’s backcountry and 

wilderness values, there is no new 

wilderness designation proposed under 

any of the alternatives. The foreseeable 

environmental consequences of each 

alternative, and appropriate mitigation 

strategies, are identified and analyzed in 

the EIS. 

Public Review and Changes in the 

Final Document: Prior to development 

of the Draft EIS, nine scoping meetings 

were held, seven planning newsletters 

issued; alternatives planning workshops 

were held in seven cities; and the parks 

regularly communicated with the 

cooperating association and 

concessioners authorized to operate in 

the parks. Meetings and contacts have 

occurred with special use permittees, 

private landowners; and numerous 

other stakeholders. The project mailing 

list included more than 3700 entries. 

The Draft EIS was available for 150 days 

review during May–October, 2004. It 

was made available at local area 

libraries, and could be reviewed 

electronically via http://www.nps.gov/ 

seki or http://planning.den.nps.gov/seki. 

Printed and CD copies were sent upon 

request, and also distributed to agencies 

and organizations listed as recipients in 

the Consultation and Coordination 

section of the EIS. Public meetings to 

facilitate review and comment on the 

Draft EIS were held during the comment 

period both in the parks, as well as in 

the following locations: Thee Rivers, 

Visalia, Fresno/Clovis, Sacramento, San 

Francisco, Los Angeles and Bishop. 

Approximately 400 comments were 

received; this information resulted in 

minor corrections and clarifications to 

the Draft EIS/GMP. Editorial changes 

and additional explanatory text on 

topics of interest were incorporated. 

There were no substantive changes due 

to public commentary. 

Following the closure of the public 

comment period, Pub. L. 108–447 was 

enacted and changes to the document to 

accommodate this public law were 

made with regard to two areas with 

special use permits: (1) The law that 

appended the Mineral King area to the 

park in 1978 required that use of cabins 

at Mineral King be phased out upon the 

deaths of the permittees of record. Pub. 

L. 108–447 amended Pub. L. 95–625 by 

authorizing indefinite extension of 

special use permits to heirs, successors 

and assigns; and (2) Pub. L. 108–447 

amended Pub. L. 99–338 to allow the 

Secretary to permit Southern California 

Edison Co. up to two additional ten-year 

permit periods of hydroelectric 

operations until 2026. 

Description of Alternatives: The Final 

EIS for the GMP/Comprehensive River 

Management Plans includes four action 

alternatives and a no-action alternative 

which continues current management. 

The Comprehensive River management 

Plan would be common to every 

alternative. The No-Action Alternative 

(Continue Current Management): The 

parks are managed as they are now in 

accordance with approved plans (such 

as development concept plans, and the 

1996 Giant Forest Interim Management 

Plan); negative resource impacts and 

visitor demands are mitigated by 

relocating development, reducing some 

uses, or confining new developed areas. 

Visitor uses are reassessed and revised 

as new information about natural and 

cultural resource impacts and visitor 

needs emerges. Current facilities are 

inadequate for park needs and visitor 

use levels, and crowding is common in 

some areas. 

Preferred Alternative: The parks’

appeal is broadened to be more relevant 

to diverse user groups, Increased day 

use is accommodated, and overnight 

visitation is retained. The integrity of 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 223 / Monday, November 20, 2006 / Notices 67159 

park resources is paramount. Stronger 

educational and outreach programs 

provide enjoyment and introduce park 

conservation values. The basic character 

of park activities and the rustic 

architecture of facilities are retained so 

that the parks remain strikingly different 

from surrounding areas. Park 

administrative facilities are redesigned 

and may be relocated outside the parks. 

Park facilities accommodate sustainable 

growth. Stock use continues with 

appropriate management and 

monitoring. 

Alternative A: Emphasize Natural 

Ecosystems and Biodiversity; Reduce 

Use and Development: The parks are 

natural resource preserves; they are 

primarily valued because they contain 

publicly owned resources that will be 

conserved for the future. Levels of use 

are lower than at present, and visitor 

experiences are more directly connected 

to natural resources and provide more 

solitude. The parks contrast strongly 

with surrounding lands which are 

continuing to develop. Park managers 

aggressively cooperate with the 

managers of surrounding lands to 

enhance range-wide biodiversity. 

Alternative C: Preserve Traditional 

Character and Retain the Feel of 

Yesteryear; Guide Growth: The parks 

present a traditional character and the 

feeling of yesteryear, where experiences 

are more reminiscent of how visitors 

used the parks in the past. This is 

conveyed through rustic architecture 

and lower impact recreational activities 

(such as sightseeing and hiking) that 

were popular from the 1920s to the 

1960s, providing an experience that is 

strikingly different from that in an urban 

setting. Redesigned developed areas 

accommodate limited growth; overnight 

stays are encouraged. Negative impacts 

on natural resources are controlled, so 

as to maintain or improve resource 

conditions. 

Alternative D: Preserve Basic 

Character and Adapt to Changing User 

Groups; Guide Growth: The parks 

preserve some of their traditional 

character and rustic architecture, but 

diverse new user groups and uses are 

encouraged. Day use is more common. 

Facilities are expanded to meet users’

needs, while frequent interpretive 

programs are offered to educate, 

entertain, and instill a sense of park 

conservation values. Negative impacts 

on natural resources are controlled or 

mitigated, so as to maintain or improve 

resource conditions. 

Addresses and Further Information: 

Copies of the Final EIS will be available 

for public review in the office of the 

Superintendent and at local area public 

libraries, and may also be requested (by 

those not presently on the mailing list) 

by contacting the park by letter at: Final 

EIS/GMP, Sequoia and Kings Canyon 

National Parks, 47050 Generals 

Highway, Three Rivers, CA 93271–9651; 

by telephone at (559) 565–3101; or by email at seki_superintendent@nps.gov. 

Please note that names and addresses of 

all respondents will become part of the 

public record. Our practice is to make 

all comments, including names, home 

addresses, home phone numbers, and email 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 of 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public inspection in their entirety. 

Decision: The National Park Service 

will execute a Record of Decision not 

sooner than 30 days following 

publication by the Environmental 

Protection Agency of their notice of 

filing of the Final EIS in the Federal 

Register. As a delegated EIS the official 

responsible for the final approval of the 

General Management Plan and 

Comprehensive River Management Plan 

is the Regional Director; subsequently 

the official responsible for 

implementing the new plans would be 

the Superintendent, Sequoia and Kings 

Canyon National Parks. 

Dated: October 6, 2006. 

George J. Turnbull, 

Acting Regional Director, Pacific West Region. 

[FR Doc. 06–9279 Filed 11–17–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–X2–M 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Quarterly Status Report of Water 

Service, Repayment, and Other WaterRelated Contract Negotiations 

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of 

contractual actions that have been 

proposed to the Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation) and are new, modified, 

discontinued, or completed since the 

last publication of this notice on August 

2, 2006. This notice is one of a variety 

of means used to inform the public 

about proposed contractual actions for 

capital recovery and management of 

project resources and facilities 

consistent with section 9(f) of the 

Reclamation Project Act of 1939. 

Additional announcements of 

individual contract actions may be 

published in the Federal Register and in 

newspapers of general circulation in the 

areas determined by Reclamation to be 

affected by the proposed action. 

ADDRESSES: The identity of the 

approving officer and other information 

pertaining to a specific contract 

proposal may be obtained by calling or 

writing the appropriate regional office at 

the address and telephone number given 

for each region in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sandra L. Simons, Manager, Contract 

Services Office, Bureau of Reclamation, 

PO Box 25007, Denver, Colorado 80225–

0007; telephone 303–445–2902. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Consistent 

with section 9(f) of the Reclamation 

Project Act of 1939 and the rules and 

regulations published in 52 FR 11954, 

April 13, 1987 (43 CFR 426.22), 

Reclamation will publish notice of 

proposed or amendatory contract 

actions for any contract for the delivery 

of project water for authorized uses in 

newspapers of general circulation in the 

affected area at least 60 days prior to 

contract execution. Announcements 

may be in the form of news releases, 

legal notices, official letters, 

memorandums, or other forms of 

written material. Meetings, workshops, 

and/or hearings may also be used, as 

appropriate, to provide local publicity. 

The public participation procedures do 

not apply to proposed contracts for the 

sale of surplus or interim irrigation 

water for a term of 1 year or less. Either 

of the contracting parties may invite the 

public to observe contract proceedings. 

All public participation procedures will 

be coordinated with those involved in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act. Pursuant to 

the ‘‘Final Revised Public Participation 

Procedures’’ for water resource-related 

contract negotiations, published in 47 

FR 7763, February 22, 1982, a tabulation 

is provided of all proposed contractual 

actions in each of the five Reclamation 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES