26728 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 3, 2009 / Notices 

Estimated Number of Responses per 

Respondent: 1.02. 

Estimated Total Number of Annual 

Responses: 15,585. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden on 

Respondents: 11,522 hours. 

Estimate of Burden for Each Form: 

Form No. 

Burden 

estimate 

per form 

(in minutes) 

Number of 

respondents 

Annual 

number of 

responses 

Annual 

burden on 

respondents 

(in hours) 

Form 7–2180 ................................................................................................... 60 4,124 4,206 4,206 

Form 7–2180EZ ............................................................................................... 45 425 434 326 

Form 7–2181 ................................................................................................... 78 1,205 1,229 1,598 

Form 7–2184 ................................................................................................... 45 32 33 25 

Form 7–2190 ................................................................................................... 60 1,620 1,652 1,652 

Form 7–2190EZ ............................................................................................... 45 96 98 74 

Form 7–2191 ................................................................................................... 78 777 793 1,031 

Form 7–2194 ................................................................................................... 45 4 4 3 

Form 7–21PE ................................................................................................... 75 146 149 186 

Form 7–21PE–IND .......................................................................................... 12 4 4 1 

Form 7–21TRUST ........................................................................................... 60 882 900 900 

Form 7–21VERIFY .......................................................................................... 12 5,434 5,543 1,109 

Form 7–21FC ................................................................................................... 30 214 218 109 

Form 7–21XS ................................................................................................... 30 144 147 74 

Form 7–21FARMOP ........................................................................................ 78 172 175 228 

Totals ................................................................................................. ........................ 15,279 15,585 11,522 

Comments. 

Comments are invited on: 

(a) Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of our functions, including 

whether the information will have 

practical use; 

(b) The accuracy of our burden 

estimate for the proposed collection of 

information; 

(c) Ways to enhance the quality, 

usefulness, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and 

(d) Ways to minimize the burden of 

the collection of information on 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. Reclamation will 

display a valid OMB control number on 

the RRA forms. A Federal Register 

notice with a 60-day comment period 

soliciting comments on this collection 

of information was published in the 

Federal Register (73 FR 63509, Oct. 24, 

2008). No public comments were 

received. 

OMB has up to 60 days to approve or 

disapprove this information collection, 

but may respond after 30 days; 

therefore, public comment should be 

submitted to OMB within 30 days in 

order to assure maximum consideration. 

Before including your address, 

telephone number, e-mail address, or 

other personal identifying information 

in your comment, you should be aware 

that your entire comment—including 

your personal identifying information— 

may be made publicly available at any 

time. While you can ask us in your 

comment to withhold your personal 

identifying information from public 

review, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. 

Dated: April 21, 2009. 

Richard W. Rizzi, 

Acting Director, Program and Policy Services, 

Denver Office. 

[FR Doc. E9–12924 Filed 6–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement; 

Prisoners Harbor Coastal Wetland 

Restoration Project, Channel Islands 

National Park; Notice of Availability 

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

of the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 81–190 as 

amended), the National Park Service, 

Department of Interior, has prepared a 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for Prisoners Harbor Coastal 

Wetland Restoration. The Draft EIS 

evaluates alternative methods for 

ecological restoration and cultural 

resource protection. Appropriate 

mitigation measures are incorporated, 

and an ‘‘environmentally preferred’’ 

course of action is identified. The 

‘‘action’’ alternatives are based upon 

information gained during public 

scoping, as well as park values, effective 

restoration strategies, National Park 

Service policy, and applicable laws. 

Background: Prisoners Harbor and 

Canada del Puerto creek are located on 

the north side of Santa Cruz Island, 

Santa Barbara County, California. The 

project’s area of potential effect 

encompasses the lower 3⁄4 mile of 

Canada del Puerto extending to the 19- 

acre triangular shaped Prisoners Harbor 

area. This area includes a beach, cobble 

bar, lower stream channel and the Park’s 

largest coastal floodplain wetland 

highly-valued archeological resources, 

historic resources associated with the 

island’s ranching history, and stands of 

invasive eucalyptus trees along the 

riparian corridor in Canada del Puerto. 

Historically the Prisoners Harbor area 

has been extensively modified by direct 

filling of the coastal floodplain wetland, 

placement of a berm on the west bank 

of the associated Canada del Puerto 

creek, and introduction of the invasive 

fennel, eucalyptus, and kikuyu grass. 

Combined, these extensive 

modifications resulted in the loss of 

approximately 50%, or 3 acres, of 

wetland, altered channel hydraulics 

essentially disconnecting the creek from 

its floodplain wetland, and 

inadvertently directed the erosive power 

of flood flows toward highly-valued 

archeological resources and caused the 

loss of approximately 20 acres of 

southern oak riparian woodland. The 

purpose of the project is to restore a 

functional ecosystem including wetland 

and riparian components, protect 

archeological resources and the historic 

scale house, control invasive species, 

and provide a compatible visitor 

experience. Under current conditions 

the coastal wetland habitat is degraded 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 3, 2009 / Notices 26729 

and relegated to 3 acres. A berm created 

without engineering specifications in 

the 1960’s inadvertently directs the 

erosive power of flood flows toward 

highly-valued archeological resources, 

and during high flows flood water 

breaches the creek at a low water 

crossing and threatens the historic 

warehouse and other park 

infrastructure. There is no on-site visitor 

interpretation signage in the project 

area. Channel Islands National Park has 

determined that certain restoration 

activities at the project site will improve 

the condition of resources and the 

visitor experience. 

Range of Alternatives: This Draft EIS 

describes and analyzes one No Action 

Alternative and two Action 

Alternatives. The No Action Alternative 

(Alternative A) would continue current 

management practices. Alternatives B 

and C (action alternatives) contain a 

varying mix of four main components: 

(1) Ecological restoration, including 

removing fill and controlling invasive 

species; (2) restoring hydraulic function; 

(3) protecting sensitive archeological 

resources; and (4) improving the visitor 

experience. Each of the action 

alternatives incorporates the following 

elements: (1) Remove fill from the 

former wetland; (2) remove a section of 

berm along the west bank of Canada del 

Puerto creek; (3) remove cattle corrals; 

(4) relocate scale house to pre-1960’s 

location; (5) construct a protective 

barrier around a highly-valued 

archeological site; (6) remove 

eucalyptus from the lower Canada del 

Puerto, (7) control other priority 

invasive species; and (7) improve the 

visitor experience of coastal wetlands, 

associated wildlife, and historic human 

uses. 

Alternative B (agency-preferred) 

would restore 3.1 acres of palustrine 

wetlands and deepwater habitat by 

removing approximately 13,000 yds 3

20% fill material, removing all cattle 

corrals, relocating the scale house out of 

the 100-year floodplain to its pre-1960s 

location adjacent to the warehouse, and 

removing 250 ft of berm thereby 

reconnecting the creek to its floodplain. 

Alternative B would protect highly 

valued archeological resources by 

constructing a protective barrier around 

a portion of the archeological site. 

Twenty acres of riparian woodland 

would be restored by removing 1700 

eucalyptus trees and controlling 

invasive fennel and kikuyu grass in the 

riparian corridor. Alternative B would 

improve the visitor experience through 

the installation of interpretive signage 

and placement of benches in wildlife 

viewing areas. 

Alternative C would restore 2.1 acres 

of palustrine wetlands and deepwater 

habitat by removing approximately 

11,000 yds 3 20% fill material, retaining 

two cattle corrals adjacent to the access 

road, removing 250 ft of berm thereby 

reconnecting the creek to its floodplain, 

and also would restore 20 acres of 

riparian woodland by removing 1700 

eucalyptus trees and controlling 

invasive fennel and kikuyu grass in the 

riparian corridor. The scale house 

would remain in its current location 

within the 100-year floodplain. 

Alternative C would protect highly 

valued archeological resources by 

constructing a protective barrier around 

a portion of the archeological site. 

Finally, this alternative would improve 

the visitor experience through the 

placement of interpretive signage. 

Scoping and Public Involvement: A 

site visit was held in April 2007 to 

solicit preliminary issues and concerns 

regarding the project concept. The 

agenda for the meeting included 

introductions, site orientation with an 

informal walking tour of the site, 

followed by a round-robin discussion 

with opportunity to ask questions and 

express concerns. A Notice of Intent 

(NOI) to prepare an EIS and conduct 

public scoping was published in the 

Federal Register on June 11, 2008. On 

June 12, 2008, a press release 

announcing public scoping was 

distributed to the Ventura County Star 

and the Santa Barbara News-Press, as 

well as 73 other media outlets, 

including newspapers, radio stations, 

and television stations. The press 

release explained the public scoping 

process, announced two public open 

houses, and provided the Web sites for 

Channel Islands National Park and NPS 

park planning. The NOI and press 

release were posted on the park Web 

site. Notices of the public scoping open 

houses were printed in the Ventura 

County Star and Santa Barbara NewsPress on June 23, 2008. Approximately 

240 public scoping announcements 

were distributed including details of 

date, time, and location of the public 

open houses. These outreach activities 

elicited pertinent information from 

interested individuals, agencies, and 

organizations, which aided the 

alternatives formulation and 

environmental impact analysis 

processes. 

Comments: Copies of the Draft EIS 

will be sent to affected Federal, Tribal, 

State and local government agencies, to 

interested parties, and those requesting 

copies. Paper and digital copies 

(compact disc) of the document will 

also be available at park headquarters 

and at local libraries. The complete 

document will be posted on the Channel 

Islands National Park Web site (http:// 

www.nps.gov/chis/) and on the NPS 

Planning, Environment and Public 

Comment Web site (http:// 

parkplanning.nps.gov/chis). All written 

comments must be postmarked or 

transmitted no later than 60 days from 

the publication date of EPA’s notice of 

filing in the Federal Register— 

immediately upon confirmation of this 

date, this information will be posted on 

the project Web sites and announced via 

regional and local press media. 

Written comments may be submitted 

by letter sent to: Channel Islands 

National Park, Prisoners Harbor Coastal 

Wetland Restoration, 1901 Spinnaker 

Drive, Ventura, CA 93001 (or may be 

transmitted electronically at http:// 

parkplanning.nps.gov/chis). Two public 

meetings will be held approximately 30 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Questions 

regarding status of project planning may 

be directed to Paula Power (805) 658– 

5784 (or via e-mail 

paula_power@nps.gov). All comments 

are maintained in the administrative 

record and will be available for public 

review at Channel Islands National Park 

Headquarters. Before including your 

address, phone number, e-mail address, 

or other personal identifying 

information in your comment, you 

should be aware that your entire 

comment—including your personal 

identifying information—may be made 

publicly available at any time. While 

you can ask us in your comments to 

withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Decision Process: Following the 

analysis of all comments received 

concerning the Draft EIS, at this time it 

is anticipated that the Final EIS would 

be completed in the summer 2009. The 

availability of the final document will 

be similarly announced in the Federal 

Register, and also publicized via local 

and regional press media, direct 

mailings, and Web site postings. Not 

sooner than thirty days after the 

distribution of the Final EIS, a Record 

of Decision may be executed (at this 

time it is anticipated a recommended 

decision would be developed in fall 

2009). As a delegated EIS the approving 

official responsible for the final decision 

is the Regional Director, Pacific West 

Region. Subsequently, the official 

responsible for implementing the 

approved wetland and restoration plan 

will be the Superintendent, Channel 

Islands National Park. 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
26730 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 3, 2009 / Notices 

Dated: March 9, 2009. 

Jonathan B. Jarvis, 

Regional Director, Pacific West Region. 

[FR Doc. E9–12725 Filed 6–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–FY–M 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement; 

Yosemite Institute Environmental 

Education Campus; Yosemite National 

Park; Mariposa and Tuolumne 

Counties, California; 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 Department of 

the Interior, National Park Service 

(NPS), has prepared a Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (Draft 

EIS) identifying and evaluating three 

alternatives for managing the Yosemite 

Institute Environmental Education 

Campus in Yosemite National Park, 

California. The Draft EIS for the 

proposed Environmental Education 

Campus identifies and analyzes two 

‘‘action’’ alternatives and a ‘‘no-action’’ 

alternative. The full spectrum of 

foreseeable environmental 

consequences are assessed and suitable 

mitigation strategies are considered; an 

‘‘environmentally preferred’’ course of 

action is also identified. Concurrently 

completion of the EIS process will fulfill 

the public review requirements of § 106 

of the National Historic Preservation 

Act. 

Range of Alternatives: Under the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative (Alternative 1), there 

would be no change in the management 

direction, program, location, or 

conditions at the Crane Flat campus. 

Necessary maintenance and repairs 

would continue, but no major 

rehabilitation of facilities, construction 

of buildings, or improvements to 

utilities would occur. There would be 

no change in size of facilities—the 

number of student and staff beds (76 

and 8, respectively) would remain the 

same. The overall number of students in 

the park per session would remain the 

same (361 students), with the majority 

of students in commercial lodging in 

Yosemite Valley. 

Under both ‘‘action’’ alternatives, new 

energy-efficient, sustainable facilities 

would be constructed to accommodate 

more students on campus, rather than 

using additional commercial lodging in 

Yosemite Valley. These improvements 

would provide a safer environment and 

provide more opportunities for students 

from diverse backgrounds to participate 

in the program. All facilities would 

achieve fire, health, safety and 

accessibility standards. 

Under Alternative 2, the Crane Flat 

campus would be redeveloped, 

doubling its capacity (to 154 students, 

14 staff), and greatly reducing reliance 

upon commercial lodging in Yosemite 

Valley. Most campus buildings would 

be removed and replaced. Historic 

structures on the campus would be 

retained, and some new facilities would 

be constructed. Utilities would be 

upgraded to conserve water, meet 

additional capacity, and achieve health, 

safety, and accessibility standards. The 

new campus would be reconstructed 

largely in its existing location (shifting 

the campus cabins upslope, away from 

a sensitive meadow). Under Alternative 

3 (agency-preferred), a new campus 

would be located at Henness Ridge. 

New facilities would be constructed to 

accommodate 224 students and 20 staff 

and to meet park operational needs. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public 

scoping was initiated in 2002; the park 

conducted two public meetings on June 

26 and June 29, 2002 at the East 

Auditorium in Yosemite Valley. A 

Notice of Intent to prepare a Draft EIS 

for the ‘‘Crane Flat Environmental 

Education Campus Redevelopment’’ 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 23, 2002 established a 45-day 

scoping period (comments were 

accepted through November 14, 2002). 

During the scoping period, NPS held 

discussions and briefings with: tribes, 

park staff, elected officials, public 

service organizations, and other 

interested members of the public. The 

feedback received helped broaden the 

range of alternatives to include 

consideration of additional sites for the 

campus; a Scoping Summary is 

available and may be obtained by 

contacting the park as noted below. 

Copies of the Draft EIS will be 

distributed to the general public, sent 

directly to those who have requested it, 

as well as to congressional delegations, 

state and local elected officials, federal 

agencies, tribes, organizations, local 

businesses, public libraries, and the 

news media. Reference copies will be 

available at park headquarters in 

Yosemite Valley, the Office of 

Environmental Planning and 

Compliance at the NPS Maintenance 

Complex in El Portal, and at local and 

regional libraries in El Portal, Mariposa, 

Oakhurst, Sonora, San Francisco, and 

Los Angeles. The complete document 

will be posted on the Yosemite National 

Park Web page at http:/www.nps.gov/ 

yose/parkmgmt/planning.htm. 

Additional copies can be requested by 

contacting the park through one of the 

methods listed below. Public meetings 

and project site visits will be scheduled 

during the public review period; details 

regarding specific dates, locations and 

time will be posted on the park’s 

planning Web page (address above) and 

announced via local and regional news 

media. 

Review and Comment: All written 

comments must be postmarked or 

transmitted not later than July 15, 2009 

(this information will also be posted on 

the project Web site and announced via 

local and regional media). All comments 

received will become available for 

public review in the park’s planning 

and compliance office. Before including 

your address, phone number, e-mail 

address, or other personal identifying 

information, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. All comments should be 

addressed to the Superintendent, 

Yosemite National Park, and may be 

mailed to Superintendent, Yosemite 

National Park, Attn: Environmental 

Education Campus DEIS, P.O. Box 577, 

Yosemite, California 95389 (comments 

may also be sent by facsimile to (209) 

379–1294, Attn: Environmental 

Planning and Compliance, YIEEC; or 

transmitted electronically to 

Yose_Planning@nps.gov with YIEEC 

typed in the subject line). 

Decision Process: All comments as 

may be received on the draft EIS will be 

analyzed and fully considered in 

preparing the Final EIS, which is 

anticipated to be available for public 

release in Fall-Winter 2009. Availability 

of the Final EIS will be announced in 

the Federal Register and via local and 

regional press media and direct 

mailings. Following a minimum 30-day 

waiting period, a Record of Decision 

will be prepared and notice of approval 

similarly published in the Federal 

Register. As a delegated EIS, the official 

responsible for approval of the project is 

the Regional Director, Pacific West 

Region; subsequently the official 

responsible for project implementation 

would be the Superintendent, Yosemite 

National Park. 


PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES