69956 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 21, 2000 / Notices

3420.1–4) in the area, for purposes of

the environmental analysis for the

Powder River Basin EIS, and for any

necessary update or amendment of the

Buffalo and Platte River RMPs.

Information concerning areas of coal

leasing interest, coal resource data, and

other resource information related to the

coal unsuitability criteria must be

submitted to the Buffalo Field Office at

the address above.

Dated: November 14, 2000.

Alan L. Kesterke,

Associate State Director.

[FR Doc. 00–29722 Filed 11–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service

RIN 1010–AB57

Major Portion Prices and Due Dates for

Additional Royalty Payments on Indian

Gas Production in Designated Areas

Not Associated With an Index Zone

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service

(MMS), Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Major Portion Prices.

SUMMARY: Final regulations for valuing

gas produced from Indian leases,

published on August 10, 1999, require

MMS to determine major portion values

and notify industry by publishing the

values in the Federal Register

regulations also require MMS to publish

a due date for industry to pay additional

royalty based on the major portion

value. This notice provides the major

portion values and due dates for May

and June 2000 production months.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2000.

ADDRESSES: See FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Barder, Indian Oil and Gas Compliance

Asset Management, MMS; telephone,

(303) 275–7234; FAX, (303) 275–7470;

E-mail, John.Barder@mms.gov; mailing

address, Minerals Management Service,

Minerals Revenue Management, Indian

Oil and Gas Compliance Asset

Management, P.O. Box 25165, MS

396G3, Denver, Colorado 80225–0165.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August

10, 1999, MMS published a final rule

titled ‘‘Amendments to Gas Valuation

Regulations for Indian Leases,’’ (64 FR

43506) with an effective date of January

1, 2000. The gas regulations apply to all

gas production from Indian (tribal or

allotted) oil and gas leases (except leases

on the Osage Indian Reservation).

The rule requires that MMS publish

major portion prices for each designated

area not associated with an index zone

for each production month beginning

January 2000 along with a due date for

additional royalty payments. See 30

CFR 206.174(a)(4)(ii)(64 FR 43520,

August 10, 1999). If additional royalties

are due based on a published major

portion price, the lessee must submit an

amended Form MMS–2014, Report of

Sales and Royalty Remittance, to MMS

by the due date. If additional royalties

are not paid by the due date, late

payment interest under 30 CFR 218.54

(1999) will accrue from the due date

until payment is made and an amended

Form MMS–2014 is received. The table

below lists the major portion prices for

all designated areas not associated with

an Index Zone and the due date for

payment of additional royalties.

GAS MAJOR PORTION PRICES AND DUE DATES FOR DESIGNATED AREAS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH AN INDEX ZONE

MMS-Designated areas May 2000 June 2000 Due date

Alabama-Coushatta ............................................................................................................... $3.13/MMBtu .... $4.52/MMBtu .... 01/02/2001

Blackfeet Reservation ............................................................................................................ 2.29/MMBtu ...... 2.79/MMBtu ...... 01/02/2001

Fort Belknap .......................................................................................................................... 3.92/MMBtu ...... 4.14/MMBtu ...... 01/02/2001

Fort Berthold .......................................................................................................................... 1.25/MMBtu ...... 2.03/MMBtu ...... 01/02/2001

Fort Peck Reservation ........................................................................................................... 1.95/MMBtu ...... 2.72/MMBtu ...... 01/02/2001

Navajo Allotted Leases in the Navajo Reservation ............................................................... 2.78/MMBtu ...... 3.87/MMBtu ...... 01/02/2001

Rocky Boys Reservation ....................................................................................................... 2.04/MMBtu ...... 3.09/MMBtu ...... 01/02/2001

Turtle Mountain Reservation ................................................................................................. 1.18/MMBtu ...... 1.18/MMBtu ...... 01/02/2001

Ute Allotted Leases in the Uintah and Ouray Reservation ................................................... 2.80/MMBtu ...... 3.76/MMBtu ...... 01/02/2001

Ute Tribal Leases in the Uintah and Ouray Reservation ...................................................... 2.80/MMBtu ...... 3.76/MMBtu ...... 01/02/2001

For information on how to report

additional royalties due to major portion

prices, please refer to our Dear Payor

letter dated December 1, 1999.

Dated: November 15, 2000.

Lucy Querques Denett,

Associate Director for Minerals Revenue

Management.

[FR Doc. 00–29829 Filed 11–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

Final Supplemental Environmental

Impact Statement for Yosemite Valley

Plan, Yosemite National Park Madera,

Mono, Tuolumne, and Mariposa

Counties, California; Notice of

Availability

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

Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement identifying and evaluating

five alternatives for a Yosemite Valley

Plan within Yosemite National Park.

The foreseeable potential for

environmental impacts, and appropriate

mitigation, are identified and assessed

for each alternative. When approved,

the plan is intended to guide

management actions during the next 15–

20 years.

Proposal

The proposed Yosemite Valley Plan

(Alternative 2—Preferred) would restore

approximately 176 disturbed or

developed acres in Yosemite Valley to

natural conditions. In addition, 173

acres of developed land would be

redeveloped and 73 acres of

undeveloped land would be developed

to accommodate visitor and employee

services, such as campgrounds, dayvisitor parking, and employee housing.

The net effect of this proposal would be

to reduce development in Yosemite

Valley by approximately 71 acres. This

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 21, 2000 / Notices 69957

proposal would locate a new Valley

Visitor Center and consolidate parking

for day-visitors at Yosemite Village, and

also consolidate parking in three areas

outside Yosemite Valley. There would

be more campsites and fewer lodging

units than there are now. Vehicle travel

in the eastern portion of Yosemite

Valley during summer months would be

greatly reduced. The area of the former

Upper and Lower River Campgrounds

would be restored to a mosaic of

meadow, riparian, and oak woodland

communities, roads would be removed

from Ahwahnee and Stoneman

Meadows, and much of Curry Orchard

would be restored to natural conditions.

Southside Drive would be converted to

two-way traffic from El Capitan

crossover to Curry Village, and

Northside Drive would be converted to

a paved bicycle and pedestrian trail

from El Capitan crossover to Yosemite

Lodge. There would be minimal new

development west of Yosemite Lodge.

Alternatives

Alternative 1 maintains the status quo

in Yosemite Valley, as described in

Chapter 3, Affected Environment. It

provides a baseline from which to

compare other alternatives, to evaluate

the magnitude of proposed changes, and

to measure the environmental effects of

those changes. This ‘‘no new actions’’

concept follows the guidance of the

Council on Environmental Quality,

which defines such base-line

alternatives as no change from the

current management direction or level

of management intensity.

Alternative 3 would restore

approximately 209 disturbed or

developed acres in Yosemite Valley to

natural conditions; and 148 acres of

developed land would be redeveloped

and 99 acres of undeveloped land

would be developed to accommodate

visitor and employee services. The net

effect would be to reduce development

in Yosemite Valley by approximately 72

acres. This alternative consolidates

parking for day-visitors in the Taft Toe

area; a Valley Visitor Center would also

be constructed there. There would be

fewer campsites and lodging units than

there are now. The area of the former

Upper and Lower River Campgrounds

and the Camp 6 parking area near

Yosemite Village would be restored to

riparian habitat, roads would be

removed from Ahwahnee and Stoneman

Meadows, and parking and the historic

fruit trees would be removed from Curry

Orchard. Northside Drive would be

converted to a trail for pedestrians and

bicyclists from Yosemite Lodge to El

Capitan Crossover, and Southside Drive

would be converted to two-way traffic

from Taft Toe to Curry Village.

Alternative 4 would restore

approximately 194 disturbed or

developed acres in Yosemite Valley to

natural conditions. In addition, 154

acres of developed land would be

redeveloped and 99 acres of

undeveloped land would be developed

to accommodate visitor and employee

services. The net effect would be to

reduce development in Yosemite Valley

by approximately 66 acres. This

alternative would consolidate parking

for day-visitors in the Taft Toe area in

mid Yosemite Valley and in three

parking areas outside the Valley. A

Valley Visitor Center would be

constructed at Taft Toe. There would be

fewer campsites and lodging units than

there are now. The area of former Upper

and Lower River Campgrounds and the

Camp 6 parking area near Yosemite

Village would be restored to riparian

communities; roads would be removed

from Ahwahnee and Stoneman

Meadows; and parking would be

removed from Curry Orchard. Northside

Drive would be converted to a multiuse-paved trail for hikers and bicyclists,

from Yosemite Lodge to El Capitan

crossover. Southside Drive would be

converted to two-way traffic from Taft

Toe to Curry Village.

Alternative 5 would restore

approximately 157 disturbed or

developed acres in Yosemite Valley to

natural conditions. In addition, 181

acres of developed land would be

redeveloped and 54 acres of

undeveloped land would be developed

to accommodate employee and visitor

services. The net effect would be to

reduce development in Yosemite Valley

by approximately 63 acres. This

alternative consolidates parking for dayvisitors at Yosemite Village and selected

areas outside of Yosemite Valley. A new

transit center would be located at

Yosemite Village. Traffic circulation

would remain similar to the present;

however, one lane of Northside and

Southside Drives would be converted to

multi-use paved trails between El

Capitan Crossover and Yosemite Lodge.

There would be more campsites and

fewer lodging units than now, and area

of the former Lower and Upper River

Campgrounds would be restored to a

mosaic of riparian and oak woodland

communities. There would be minimal

new development in mid and west

Yosemite Valley.

Planning Background

The draft Yosemite Valley Plan and

Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement (SEIS) were prepared by the

National Park Service (NPS) pursuant to

the National Environmental Policy Act.

A Scoping Notice was published in the

Federal Register on December 16, 1998.

General issues and specific concerns

already raised during previous relevant

planning processes were provided to the

public. Scoping comments were

received through February 1, 1999.

During this scoping period, the NPS

facilitated over 100 discussions and

briefings to interested members of the

public, congressional delegations,

Indian Tribes, elected officials, other

agencies, public service organizations,

educational institutions, and other

entities. Nearly 600 letters were

received concerning the announced

conservation planning and

environmental impact analysis process.

The draft Yosemite Valley

Plan\SEIS—formally announced for

public review per Notice of Availability

published in the Federal Register on

April 13, 2000—was sent directly to all

individuals, organizations, and agencies

which had previously contacted the

park; copies could also be obtained in

the park, by mail, at public meetings,

and were available for review at local

and regional libraries (i.e., San

Francisco and Los Angeles). Finally, the

complete document was posted on the

Yosemite National Park WebPage (http:/

/www.nps.gov/yose/planning). Written

comments were accepted through July

14, 2000. Approximately 10,200

responses were received; all were duly

considered and adjustments were made

to the draft plan. All written comments

have been archived and are available for

public review in the park’s research

library.

In order to further foster public

review and comment, 14 public

meetings were held throughout

California—half of these were

conducted in major metropolitan areas

of the State, and half in cities and towns

neighboring Yosemite National Park. All

meetings consisted of a combined open

house (where participants could view

displays and talk with park management

and planning staff) and formal hearings

where oral testimony before park

officials was documented by a court

reporter. Approximately 1,500 persons

attended these meetings, and 365

individuals and organization

representatives testified during the

hearings. In addition, public meetings

were conducted in Seattle, Washington,

Denver, Colorado, Chicago, Illinois, and

Washington D.C. Over 100 individuals

attended these out-of-state meetings.

Decision Process

Subsequent to release of the final

Yosemite Valley Plan\SEIS, notice of an

approved Record of Decision shall be

69958 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 21, 2000 / Notices

published in the Federal Register not

sooner than thirty (30) days after the

final document has been distributed.

This is expected to occur by the end of

December 2000. The official responsible

for the decision is the Regional Director,

Pacific West Region, National Park

Service; the official responsible for

implementation is the Superintendent,

Yosemite National Park.

Dated: November 13, 2000.

Patricia L. Neubacher,

Acting Regional Director, Pacific West Region.

[FR Doc. 00–29670 Filed 11–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

Announcement of Subsistence

Resource Commission Meeting.

AGENCY: National Park Service.

ACTION: Announcement of Subsistence

Resource Commission meeting.

SUMMARY: The Superintendent of

Aniakchak National Monument and the

Chairperson of the Subsistence Resource

Commission for Aniakchak National

Monument announce a forthcoming

meeting of the Aniakchak National

Monument Subsistence Resource

Commission. The following agenda

items will be discussed:

(1) Call to order.

(2) SRC Roll Call and Confirmation of

Quorum.

(3) Welcome and Introductions.

(4) Review and Adopt Agenda.

(5) Review and adopt minutes from

the April 4, 2000 meeting.

(6) Commission Purpose.

(7) Status of Membership.

(8) Public and Agency Comments.

(9) Old Business:

a.Status of SRC Support Letters.

(1) Roster Regulation Proposed Rule

Publication.

(2) Customary Trade within

Aniakchak National Monument and

Preserve.

(3) (3) Trapping Furbearers with

Firearm within Aniakchak National

Monument and Preserve.

(4) SRC Chairs Workshop 1999

Recommendations.

(5) Status of Geographic Place Names

Request.

b. Aniakchak National Monument and

Preserve Commercial Visitor Services

Report.

c. Status of SRC Hunting Program

Recommendations.

(1) 97–1, Establish One-Year

Minimum Residency Requirement for

Resident Zone Communities.

(2) 97–2, Establish a Registration

Permit Requirement within Aniakchak

National Preserve for Non-subsistence

Fish and Wildlife Harvest Activities.

(3) Draft Hunting Plan

Recommendation 2000–1: Between

September 10–20, Establish a Corridor

in Aniakchak National Preserve Where

NPS Would Limit Commercial Guide

Party Size, Access and drop-off

Locations.

(10) New Business:

a. October 2000 SRC Chairs Workshop

Report.

b. Federal Subsistence Board Update.

(1) Review Unit 9E Board Actions

Taken during May 2000.

(2) Bristol Bay Regional Council

Report.

(3) Review Wildlife Proposals for

2001.

(4) Review Fish Proposals for 2001

(11) Status of Draft Aniakchak

National Monument and Preserve

SubsistenceManagement Plan.

(12) Election of SRC Chair and Vice

Chair.

(13) Public and Agency Comments.

(14) SRC work session (draft

proposals, letters, and

recommendations).

(15) Set time and place of next SRC

meeting.

(16) Adjournment.

DATES: The meeting will begin at 10 a.m.

on Tuesday, November 28, 2000 and

conclude at approximately 6 p.m. The

meeting will reconvene at 9 a.m. on

Wednesday, November 29 and adjourn

at approximately 1 p.m.

LOCATION: Community Subsistence

Building, Chignik Lake, Alaska

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary McBurney at Phone (907) 257–

2633, or Tom O’Hara, Subsistence

Manager, Aniakchak National

Monument, P.O. Box 7, King Salmon,

Alaska 99613. Phone (907) 246–2101.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Subsistence Resource Commissions are

authorized under Title VIII, Section 808,

of the Alaska National Interest Lands

Conservation Act, Pub. L. 96–487, and

operate in accordance with the

provisions of the Federal Advisory

Committees Act.

Thomas J. Ferranti,

Acting Regional Director.

[FR Doc. 00–29672 Filed 11–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

National Park Service

Agenda for the January 17th 2001

Public Meeting of the Advisory

Commission for the San Francisco

Maritime National Historical Park

Public Meeting, Firehouse Building F,

Lower Fort Mason Center, 10:00 a.m.–

12:15 p.m.

10:00 a.m.: Welcome Neil Chaitin,

Chairman

Opening Remarks—Neil Chaitin,

Chairman

Approval of Minutes from Previous

Meeting

10:15 a.m.: William Thomas,

Superintendent

10:30 a.m.: WAPAMA Relocation to

Richmond—James White, Moorings

& Warehouse Foreman

10:40 a.m.: Ship Preservation Update—

Wayne Boykin, Ships Manager

10:50 a.m.: BALCLUTHA ’Tween Decks,

Haslett Visitor Center—Marc

Hayman, C, Interpretation &

Resource Management

11:30 a.m.: San Francisco Maritime

National Park Association—Kathy

Lohan, Executive Director

11: 45 a.m.: Public Comments and

Questions

12:00 p.m.: Agenda items/Date for next

meeting

William G. Thomas,

Superintendent.

[FR Doc. 00–29671 Filed 11–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places;

Notification of Pending Nominations

Nominations for the following

properties being considered for listing

in the National Register were received

by the National Park Service before

November 10, 2000. Pursuant to section

60.13 of 36 CFR Part 60 written

comments concerning the significance

of these properties under the National

Register criteria for evaluation may be

forwarded to the National Register,

National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW.,

NC400, Washington, DC 20240. Written