60678 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 198 / Thursday, October 12, 2000 / Notices

developed in concert with the Island

Conservation and Ecology Group and is

based on worldwide evaluation of other

island rat eradication projects. Actions

to manage existing and potential Black

rat infestations are necessary because of

the ecological damage occurring on

Anacapa Island, and the potential

negative impact they would have if

introduced to other Park islands.

Proposal

The technique proposed for

eradicating rats on Anacapa Island is

modeled after other island rat

eradication projects that have

successfully been completed

worldwide. Due to the steep cliffs of the

island, an aerial broadcast is necessary

to deliver rodenticide to every rat’s

territory, a condition that has to be met

to accomplish eradication. The

proposed target date for the application

is fall-winter 2000–2001. This period

offers the optimum time to apply the

bait for three reasons: the Endangered

brown pelicans are not breeding on the

island; rats are in decline due to lack of

available food sources, which prompts

them to eat bait more readily; and the

onset of the rainy season would

expedite the degradation of any residual

bait not consumed by the target species.

The chronology of eradication would

begin with baiting in representative

habitat within the project area during

the 2000 treatment window.

Representative habitat may include all

of East Islet or smaller area on Middle

Islet that allows for easy and

unobtrusive access. The objective of the

initial eradication treatment is to

conduct both effectiveness and

validation monitoring of the project’s

objective and the alternative’s proposed

activities including mandated

mitigation. This effort would be

followed up with the completion of the

island-wide eradication activities

starting with East Islet. East Islet baiting

would occur during the 2000 treatment

window and would be treated along

with approximately 20 ha of Middle

Islet to lower the probability of invasion

by rats from Middle Islet to East Islet.

The 20 ha section of Middle Islet may

be treated intermittently to prevent reinvasion of East Islet. Middle Islet

(including the section treated with East

Islet) and West Islet would be treated

during the 2001 application window

following East Islet application.

Alternatives

In addition to the six alternatives

analyzed in detail in the FEIS, many

other alternatives were considered, but

were eliminated from further study

because they could not meet the

objective of total eradication.

The alternatives considered in the

FEIS are as follows: Alternative One (No

Action) would continue with limited

control of rats around buildings and

structures; Alternative Two (proposal)

would use an aerial broadcast technique

and use a rodent bait containing

brodifacoum; Alternative Three would

utilize bait stations for the top of islands

and aerial broadcast the cliffsides and

use the rodent bait containing

brodifacoum; Alternative Four would

use an aerial broadcast of a rodent bait

containing bromadiolone; Alternative

Five would use bait stations for the top

of islands and aerial broadcast the

cliffsides with the rodent bait

bromadiolone; and Alternative Six

would aerial broadcast a rodent bait

containing diphacinone followed by a

rodent bait containing brodifacoum.

Mitigation measures specific to

implementing each alternative were

identified. In addition, each alternative

addresses the need to: (1) Conduct

effectiveness and validation monitoring;

(2) implement a non-native rodent

introduction and prevention plan; (3)

protect the native deer mouse

population; (4) implement the rat

detection response plan; (5) require

visitor use restrictions for a short period

during and after bait application; (6)

restrict baiting to specified treatment

windows; (7) obtain Federal EPA

approval for use of rodenticide bait (and

otherwise comply with NPS integrated

pest management policies); and (8)

conduct public awareness program on

the impacts of introduced species.

Public Involvement

Since 1996 conservation biologists,

educators, agency officials, and

interested individuals and organizations

have deliberated on the Anacapa Island

rat infestation. The Park formally

initiated scoping activities in November,

1999, including public meeting held

December 8, 1999. Through the scoping

and public involvement process the

following significant environmental

issues were identified: (1) Target species

efficacy; (2) Non-target species impacts;

and (3) Visitation and visitor use.

Development of alternatives was

strongly influenced by these

environmental issues. In developing a

complete range of alternatives, the Park

consulted many experts in the field of

vertebrate biology, toxicology, and avian

biology. The DEIS was distributed

during June, 2000. The formal comment

period ended September 5, 2000; nine

written responses were received.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FEIS

is available at Park headquarters, on the

Park’s website (http:www.nps.gov/chis/

naturalresources/AIRP.html), and at

Fosters Library, Ventura, California.

Copies of the FEIS may also be obtained

by contacting the Superintendent,

Channel Islands National Park, 1901

Spinnaker Dr, Ventura, California 93001

(or via telephone at (805) 658–5700).

If individuals submitting comments at

this time 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 a respondent’s identity as

allowable by law. As always: 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.

Decision

No sooner than 30 (thirty) days after

release of this FEIS a Record of Decision

(ROD) will be executed. Notice of

approval will be given via local and

regional media, and will be duly noted

in the Federal Register (actions to

implement any elements of this plan

may not occur until after the latter

Notice). The official responsible for

approval is the Regional Director,

Pacific West Region; the official

responsible for implementation is the

Superintendent, Channel Islands

National Park.

Dated: October 4, 2000.

Patricia L. Neubacher,

Regional Director, Pacific West Region.

[FR Doc. 00–26143 Filed 10–11–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

Record of Decision; Final Oil and Gas

Management Plan/Environmental

Impact Statement, Padre Island

National Seashore, Texas

ACTION: Notice of Approval of Record of

Decision:

SUMMARY: Pursuant to subsection

102(2)(C) of the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the

regulations promulgated by the Council

on Environmental Quality (40 CFR

1505.2), the National Park Service, U.S.

Department of the Interior, has prepared

a Record of Decision on the Final Oil

and Gas Management Plan/

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 198 / Thursday, October 12, 2000 / Notices 60679

Environmental Impact Statement for

Padre Island National Seashore in

Texas.

DATES: The Record of Decision was

recommended by the Superintendent of

Padre Island National Seashore,

concurred in by the Deputy Regional

Director, Southwest Cluster of the

Intermountain Region, and approved by

the Director, Intermountain Region on

August 14, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Inquiries regarding the

Record of Decision or the

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

should be submitted to the

Superintendent, Padre Island National

Seashore, P.O. Box 181300, Corpus

Christi, Texas 78480–1300, telephone

(361) 949–8173, or e-mail to:

pais_superintendent@nps.gov. You may

also view the entire ROD at the Padre

Island NS web site: http://www.nps.gov/

pais and click on ‘‘In depth.’’

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

summary of the Record of Decision

follows:

The Department of the Interior,

National Park Service (NPS), has

prepared this Record of Decision (ROD)

on the final Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) for the Oil and Gas

Management Plan for Padre Island

National Seashore, located within

Kleberg, Kenedy and Willacy Counties,

Texas. This ROD provides a statement of

the decision made; a summary

description of the 3 alternatives

analyzed in the EIS; identification of the

environmentally preferable alternative;

the decision rationale used in selecting

the alternative; a description of

mitigation measures and monitoring

plans that will be implemented for the

selected alternative; and a statement

that addresses how all practical means

to avoid or minimize environmental

harm from the selected alternative have

been adopted.

Congress established Padre Island

National Seashore on September 28,

1962, 16 U.S.C. 459d et seq., ‘‘in order

to save and preserve, for purposes of

public recreation, benefit, and

inspiration, a portion of the diminishing

seashore of the United States that

remains undeveloped . . .’’

At the time of the park’s

establishment, surface ownership was

held by the State of Texas or by private

landowners. In 1963, the surface estate

owned by the State of Texas was

donated to the United States, while

those surface rights held by private

landowners were acquired by the

federal government through

condemnation proceedings in 1965 and

1966. Private owners retained all

mineral interests underlying the park’s

terrestrial landbase. Those underlying

the submerged lands under the Laguna

Madre and Gulf of Mexico were retained

by the State of Texas and are

administered by the Texas General Land

Office. Thus, the federal government

does not own any of the subsurface oil

and gas rights in the park.

In Padre Island National Seashore’s

enabling act (16 U.S.C. subsection

459d–3(a) and section 459–4, 4(a) and

section 5), Congress authorized the NPS

to regulate nonfederal oil and gas

development. The NPS recognizes these

activities as important to those

individuals and entities that have

developed or intend to develop

nonfederal oil and gas resources

underlying the park. The NPS’

Nonfederal Oil and Gas Rights

Regulations are published at Title 36 of

the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 9,

Subpart B (36 CFR Part 9B). The 36 CFR

Part 9B regulations provide the

fundamental regulatory mechanism

through which the NPS permits and

regulates nonfederal oil and gas

operations within units of the National

Park System. Many past, present, and

future anticipated oil and gas

operations, however, have potential to

adversely impact park resources, visitor

use and experience, and human health

and safety, which NPS is required to

address.

Public involvement and the 36 CFR

Part 9B regulations, in combination with

laws, other regulations, NPS policies,

executive orders, and applicable

direction provided in park planning

documents, form the legal and policy

requirements that helped to direct and

ultimately determine the decision to

select Alternative A. These guidelines

were also used as fundamental direction

and guidance for all of the alternatives

considered in the EIS. More in depth

discussion of Current Legal and Policy

Requirements are described in the EIS,

in Chapter 2, Part II, and in Appendices

B and C.

The Reasonably Foreseeable

Development scenario (RFD) is used to

provide a basis to compare and analyze

alternatives, and address cumulative

effects of the action. The RFD used in

the final plan assumes that a 3–D

seismic survey would be conducted

over the entire Seashore. Following the

3–D seismic survey, full field

development of 6 gas fields could result

in up to 18 wells being drilled to

develop 80 billion cubic feet of natural

gas and associated liquid hydrocarbons.

This level of exploration and

development could utilize up to 748

acres of the terrestrial landbase for

seismic exploration, and up to 250 acres

of direct surface impacts for drilling and

production operations. It is understood

that the actual level of exploration and

development may be less or greater than

projected in the RFD scenario.

During the scoping process on the

Draft EIS, the NPS interdisciplinary (ID)

team, along with public input,

identified resources and values that

could be affected by nonfederal oil and

gas operations. Park resources, and

locations identified as being particularly

sensitive to potential adverse impacts

from oil and gas operations, and/or

necessary to protect resources and

values important to the overall

legislated purposes of the park, were

designated as Sensitive Resource Areas

(SRAs). In addition, other topics of

concern, such as the effect of future

planning decisions on nonfederal oil

and gas development, were considered

and evaluated in the Oil and Gas

Management Plan/EIS. The ID team also

developed issue statements to define

problems (and benefits) that might occur

with oil and gas operations (see FEIS,

Chapter 1, pages 1–17 through 1–22).

The issue statements and SRAs were

used in the evaluation and selection of

Alternative A. The list of SRAs is

provided in the final plan (see Chapter

2, page 2–8).

Decision (Selected Action)

This Record of Decision adopts and

approves for immediate implementation

Alternative A, the (Preferred

Alternative). Padre Island National

Seashore identified Alternative A as the

agency preferred action that best

satisfies the park and NPS missions, as

well as the park’s long-term

management objectives. In response to

public comments and concerns,

Alternative A has been slightly modified

from the Preferred Alternative

published in the Draft Oil and Gas

Management Plan/EIS in February 1999.

From this planning effort, a final plan

will be prepared that describes the

overall approaches to be implemented

over the next 15 to 20 years to manage

the exploration and development of

nonfederal oil and gas underlying Padre

Island National Seashore. It will utilize

the ROD, mitigation measures, and

existing planning documents to protect

natural and cultural resources, visitor

use values, and human health and safety

concerns. The final plan will serve as a

guide for directing geophysical

exploration, exploratory drilling,

treatment and storage (production), and

transportation of nonfederal oil and gas

resources in the park. It will also

provide pertinent information to oil and

gas owners and operators that will

facilitate operations planning and

60680 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 198 / Thursday, October 12, 2000 / Notices

compliance with all applicable

regulations.

Alternatives Analyzed in the EIS

Three alternatives were evaluated in

the EIS.

No Action/Current Management

(Alternative B). Alternative B provides a

benchmark of existing environmental

impacts against which the decisionmaker can compare the environmental

effects from Alternatives A (Preferred)

and C (Maximum Resource Protection

for All Sensitive Resource Areas). It

describes baseline conditions under the

current program of oil and gas

management at Padre Island National

Seashore. Under Alternative B, all

130,434 acres of the park could be

considered for nonfederal oil and gas

exploration and development under

Current Legal and Policy Requirements.

Identification of sensitive resources

and values, and application of

mitigation measures specific to the type

and scope of operations proposed would

be developed during initial scoping

meetings between the operator, the NPS,

and other interested state and federal

agencies, and presented for comment

and review at subsequent meetings

during the public involvement process.

Mitigation measures would be

developed and applied, as needed, to

comply with Current Legal and Policy

Requirements.

Under the No-Action alternative, no

comprehensive planning document

would be available. Proposed actions

would continue to be assessed on a

case-by-case basis, and identification of

sensitive resources and values,

recommended mitigation measures and

protection of sensitive resources and

values may not be consistently applied.

Sensitive resources and values

vulnerable to potential adverse impacts

from nonfederal oil and gas operations

are at greater risk.

Preferred Alternative (Alternative A)

(Selected Action). Under Alternative A,

Sensitive Resource Areas (SRAs) within

Padre Island National Seashore will be

formally designated, and specific

protection prescribed. SRAs include 4

cultural sites listed or eligible for listing

on the National Register of Historic

Places, 3 freshwater ponds, the Laguna

Madre, wind-tidal flats, visitor use

areas, foredunes, washover channels,

rookery islands, and 2 relict live oak

mottes. Specific protection, tailored to

avoid or minimize potential adverse

impacts from specific types of oil and

gas operations, is applied as operating

restrictions to each SRA. Operating

restrictions include No Surface

Disturbance, No Surface Occupancy, No

Surface Access, and Timing

Stipulations.

As a mitigation measure, operating

restrictions will be applied to the SRAs

within designated protective buffers.

The maximum acreage of the SRAs is

68,731 acres or 52.7 percent of the park.

Specific operating restrictions applied

to SRAs will effectively close surface

use on 1,316 acres (1.0% of the park) to

geophysical (3–D seismic) exploration.

Additional closures are described in

Table 2.3, pages 2–12—2–15 of the final

plan. Where specific types of oil and gas

operations could be permitted within

SRAs, the requirement to conduct

operations ‘‘in a manner which utilizes

technologically feasible methods least

damaging to the federally-owned or

controlled lands, waters and resources

of the unit while assuring the protection

of public health and safety’’ is a

standard requirement.

In areas of the park that are not

formally designated as Sensitive

Resource Areas, comprising 61,703

acres (47.3% of the park), oil and gas

operations will be permitted under

Current Legal and Policy Requirements

(CLPR).

One error in the Selected Plan,

Alternative A, in the Final Oil and Gas

Management Plan/EIS (see FEIS, pages

S–10 and S–11, and 2–13 and 2–14) is

corrected in this ROD. The timing

stipulation applied to Rookery Islands is

corrected to read: ‘‘No Surface Access

would be permitted within 1,000 feet of

the island edge between February 15

through August 31;’’ and that

‘‘geophysical exploration may be

permitted between September 1 through

February 14, under CLPR.’’

Maximum Resource Protection in All

Sensitive Resource Areas, Alternative C.

Under this alternative, Sensitive

Resource Areas (SRAs) within Padre

Island National Seashore would be

formally designated, similar to

Alternative A. The SRAs, and their

maximum protective buffers, would be

the same as those designated under

Alternative A. Alternative C would

provide maximum resource protection

to all SRAs by applying a No Surface

Access stipulation within SRA

protective buffers. This would comprise

68,731 acres (52.7% of the park).

Although SRAs would be closed to

surface access, underlying nonfederal

oil and gas could be reached via

directional drilling technology from

outside the SRAs. Where SRAs are

small, operators could plan geophysical

operations around them, and

directionally drill underneath them.

However, for the geographically large

SRAs that include the Laguna Madre

and Wind-Tidal Flats, about 58,790

acres would not be accessible. The lack

of current or site-specific 3–D seismic

data from these areas may deter

operators from drilling extended-reach

directional wells, and a portion of this

acreage may be effectively unavailable

for oil and gas development. This could

result in moderate to major adverse

impacts to oil and gas exploration and

development and to owners, operators

or lessees.

In areas of the park not designated as

SRAs, comprising 61,703 acres (47.3%

of the park), oil and gas operations

could be permitted under Current Legal

and Policy Requirements.

Under all three alternatives,

contamination of soils from past and

current oil and gas operations are

limited to small geographic areas.

Because of the risk these contaminants

present to wildlife and water quality,

the cumulative impact to soils under all

alternatives is considered a major

adverse impact until the contaminated

sites are remediated. Mitigation

measures required under Current Legal

and Policy Requirements reduce the

potential for leaks and spills of oil and

gas and contaminating, or hazardous

materials, and require cleanup and

remediation measures.

Identification of the Environmentally

Preferable Alternative

Alternative C is the environmentally

preferable alternative. The Council on

Environmental Quality (CEQ) has stated,

‘‘The environmentally preferable

alternative is the alternative that will

promote the national environmental

policy as expressed in NEPA’s Section

101. Generally this means the

alternative which causes the least

damage to the biological and physical

environment. It also means the

alternative which best protects,

preserves, and enhances historic,

cultural, and natural resources.’’ The No

Surface Access operating stipulation

applied within maximum SRA

protective buffers would close 68,731

acres (52.7% of the park) to all types of

oil and gas operations so that there

would be no direct impact on these

areas from nonfederal oil and gas

operations. Therefore, Alternative C

would provide maximum protection to

park resources and values, human

health and safety, and visitor use and

enjoyment of those resources.

Decision Rationale Used in Selecting

Alternative A

Alternative A is selected for

implementation over the

environmentally preferable Alternative

C because, after careful consideration of

public comments throughout the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 198 / Thursday, October 12, 2000 / Notices 60681

planning process, including comments

on the draft EIS, the selected action best

accomplishes the legislated purposes of

Padre Island National Seashore and

balances the statutory mission of the

NPS to provide long-term protection to

the park’s resources and significance,

while allowing for the exercise of rights

to oil and gas not owned by the United

States. The selected Alternative A also

best meets the objectives of the Oil and

Gas Management Plan/Final

Environmental Impact Statement to:

• Identify which park resources and

values are most sensitive to oil and gas

exploration and development

disturbance, and define mitigation

requirements to protect such resources

and values;

• Establish reasonable oil and gas

exploration and development

performance standards to protect park

resources and values; and

• Provide pertinent information to oil

and gas owners and operators that will

facilitate operations planning and

compliance with all applicable

regulations.

The mitigating measures applied

through specific operating stipulations

for each SRA under Alternative A will

increase protection to SRAs over

baseline conditions (No Action

Alternative B), so that potential adverse

impacts are either avoided or reduced to

acceptable limits; but will provide less

than the maximum protection provided

SRAs under Alternative C. Due to the

extensive acreage of SRAs where a

blanket No Surface Access operating

stipulation is applied under Alternative

C, a portion of this acreage may be

effectively unavailable for oil and gas

development. Therefore, the NPS has

decided that Alternative A best

accomplishes identified planning

objectives, with the fewest

environmental impacts.

Description of Mitigation Measures and

Monitoring Plans for the Selected

Alternative A

The NPS will implement the resource

protection, mitigation, and monitoring

measures found in the selected

Alternative A, and described under

Current Legal and Policy Requirements

(Chapter 2, Part II; and Appendix C) of

the final EIS and plan. The operating

stipulations applied in Alternative A to

Sensitive Resource Areas (SRA) provide

specific mitigation measures that result

in avoiding or minimizing potential

adverse impacts from nonfederal oil and

gas operations.

The final location for each well site,

production facility, access road,

gathering pipeline segment, or other

facility will be determined following a

site specific environmental document in

accordance with the NPS’ NEPA policy

(Director’s Order 12). Development and

evaluation of these individual ‘‘Plans of

Operations’’, by the NPS, and with

input from interested state, federal

agencies, and public involvement, will

incorporate existing mitigation

measures described here and in the final

plan. Additional mitigation measures

will be developed to avoid or minimize

potential adverse impacts. The park will

continue to routinely monitor and

inspect nonfederal oil and gas

operations to ensure compliance with

approved plans of operations, and to

protect resources and seashore values.

NPS and the operator’s personnel will

conduct these monitoring inspections to

ensure that the mitigation measures are

effective and implemented.

Mitigation measures also may

include: reclaiming/closing roads and

wellpads to restore fish and wildlife

habitat; reducing the extent of surface

disturbance associated with wellpads,

access roads and pipeline corridors (to

the extent permitted by safety

standards); and maximizing reclamation

and restoration success on disturbed

lands to improve wildlife habitat

wherever reasonably possible.

All practicable means to avoid of

minimize environmental impacts from

the selected alternative will be adopted

and incorporated into the final plan.

Public Involvement

Public comment has been requested,

considered, and incorporated

throughout the planning process:

• A Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS

was published in the Federal Register

on June 10, 1997 (Vol. 62, No. 111, pg.

31622), and in newspapers, including

the Austin American-Statesmen, the

Houston Chronicle, and the Corpus

Christi Caller Times.

• The NPS mailed a public scoping

newsletter to over 300 individuals,

organizations, and government agencies

to explain the planning process, provide

information, and encourage public

participation.

• A public scoping open house was

held in Corpus Christi, Texas, on July 9,

1997. During the scoping period, nine

comment letters were received, and 13

individuals requested to be added to the

mailing list.

• A second newsletter was sent to

more than 280 individuals on March 6,

1998, summarizing the results of the

scoping open house and the written

comments received by the NPS.

• The following state and federal

agencies were consulted:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

National Marine Fisheries Service

Texas Parks and Wildlife

Texas State Historic Preservation Officer

and Tonkawa Tribe

Texas General Land Office

Texas Coastal Coordination Council.

• A Notice of Availability was

published by the NPS in the Federal

Register on February 24, 1999 (Vol. 64,

No. 36, pg. 9167–9168); and, upon filing

of the Draft Oil and Gas Management

Plan/EIS.

• The U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) published a Notice of

Availability in the Federal Register on

February 26, 1999 (Vol. 64, No. 38, pg.

9508). Fifteen (15) comment letters were

received. All substantive comments (62)

were addressed in the final EIS.

• The public review period ran from

February 26 through May 12, 1999.

• In addition, the document was

posted on the Internet at the Padre

Island NS web site.

• The Final Oil and Gas Management

Plan/EIS was released to the public on

February 23, 2000. The EPA Notice of

Availability was published in the

Federal Register on March 3, 2000 (Vol.

65, No. 43, pg. 11575); the NPS Notice

of Availability was published in the

Federal Register on March 7, 2000 (Vol.

65, No. 45, pgs. 12029–12030). The final

document included a reprint of the 15

comment letters and NPS responses. In

response to releasing the Final Oil and

Gas Management Plan/EIS, 4 comment

letters were received. The comments in

the 4 letters raised no new substantive

issues.

Dated: August 14, 2000.

John A. King,

Director, Intermountain Region.

[FR Doc. 00–26142 Filed 10–11–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

Environmental Statements;

Availability, etc: Tallgrass Prairie

National Preserve, KS

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability of the final

general management plan/final

environmental impact statement for the

Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve,

Kansas.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2) of

the National Environmental Policy Act

of 1969, the National Park Service

announces the availability of the final

general management plan/final

environmental impact statement

(FGMP/FEIS) for the Tallgrass Prairie

National Preserve.