National Natural Landmarks Program

SUMMARY: This final rule revises the current regulations for the

National Natural Landmarks (NNL) Program. These revisions ensure that

owners of Potential National Natural Landmarks (PNNL) under

consideration for possible national natural landmark designation are

notified well in advance of such consideration and have the opportunity

to comment on the proposals; that the National Park System Advisory

Board reviews all future national natural landmark nominations and

provides recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior about their

qualifications for designation; and land is not included within an area

designated by the Secretary if a private property owner objects to such

a designation for his or her portion.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule becomes effective on June 11, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Natural Landmarks Program, under Mike

Soukup, Associate Director, Natural Resources, Stewardship and Science,

National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20240-0001.

Telephone: 202-208-3884.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

To identify the full range of geological and ecological features of

nationally significant examples of the nation's natural heritage and to

encourage their preservation, the Secretary of the Interior established

the NNL Program under the authority of the Historic Sites Act of 1935

(16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.). Potential natural landmarks are identified in

studies by the National Park Service (NPS) and from other sources,

evaluated by expert natural scientists, and, if determined nationally

significant, designated as landmarks by the Secretary of the Interior.

When designated, a landmark is included in the National Registry of

Natural Landmarks, which currently lists 587 national natural landmarks

nationwide.

The registry includes nationally significant geological and

ecological features in 48 States, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and

the Virgin Islands. Of the 587 listed landmarks, half are administered

solely by public agencies; i.e., Federal, State, county or municipal

governments. Nearly one-third are owned solely by private parties. The

remaining natural landmarks are owned or administered by a mixture of

public and private owners. Because many natural landmarks are privately

owned or not managed for public access, owner permission must be

obtained to visit them. Designation does not infer a right of public

access.

National natural landmark designation is not a land withdrawal,

does not change the ownership of an area and does not dictate activity.

However, Federal agencies should consider impacts to the unique

properties of these nationally significant areas in carrying out their

responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.

4321 et seq.). Designation could result in State or local planning or

land use implications. The Secretary is required to provide an annual

report to the Congress on damaged or threatened NNLs (Section 8 of the

National Park System General Authorities Act of 1970 (90 Stat. 1940),

as amended (16 U.S.C. 1a-5)).

Natural landmark preservation is made possible by the long-term,

voluntary commitments of public and private owners to protect the

outstanding values of the areas. In revising the regulations for the

program, the NPS seeks to balance two fundamental goals: identification

and preservation of nationally significant examples of the nation's

natural heritage and the full acknowledgment and respect of owners'

interests at all times.

Since 1989, significant interest in the regulations and operation

of the NNL Program centered on three major issues: (1) Notification of

owners and other concerned individuals and organizations that PNNL were

under consideration for national natural landmark designation, (2)

owner consent or objection to designation of property as a national

natural landmark, and (3) the effects of national natural landmark

designation on private property. In response to these concerns,

proposed revisions to the program regulations were published by the NPS

as a proposed rule in the Federal Register on November 21, 1991 (56 FR

58790), for a 90-day comment period. On February 6, 1992 (57 FR 4592),

the comment period was extended to March 2, 1992. In addition, during

the comment period, the NPS held public hearings on the proposed

revised regulations at nine locations around the country. Date, time

and exact location of each hearing was announced in the Federal

Register on December 16, 1991 (56 FR 65203).

The revision of the program regulations is part of an improvement

of the operation of the NNL Program by the NPS. On November 28, 1989,

the Director of the NPS instituted a moratorium on the NNL Program,

during which the NPS did not consider new areas for NNL designation.

Because the improvements have been completed, the moratorium will be

lifted upon the effective date of the regulations.

Summary of Comments

To date, copies of the proposed revised regulations were sent to

over 500 individuals or organizations on an NPS NNL mailing list that

was made part of the rulemaking. In addition, the proposed regulations

were sent to the State Park Directors and State Historic Preservation

Officers of all 50 States. As part of NPS's ongoing corroboration and

contact with current owners of the 587 designated NNLs, the proposed

regulations were also sent to approximately 8,000 NNL owners whose

names and addresses were confirmed.

Comments were received from 236 sources, which included government

entities, private organizations, and private individuals. In addition,

894 standardized, completed questionnaires were submitted as comments,

and 70 respondents presented oral or written comments at the public

hearings. Several respondents stated that the proposed revisions of the

program regulations would not resolve the three primary issues.

However, other respondents expressed support of the objectives of the

program or of the proposed revisions. Some respondents recommended the

abolishment of the program. Other respondents stated that the proposed

revisions were too extreme for resolution of the issues and were

therefore detrimental to the objectives of the program.

Analysis of Comments

Issue 1: Comment Procedure

Comments: Several respondents suggested that the final rule not be

issued until the NPS provided owners of all the designated NNLs, as

well as owners of PNNL that had been evaluated but not designated, with

the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule. Some respondents noted

that the proposed rule was so insufficient that the NPS should make the

needed changes and issue another proposed rule for comment prior to

issuing any final rule. Some respondents suggested that the proposed

[[Page 25709]]

rule be reissued for comment and that the preamble should include a

reference to the Department of the Interior Inspector General's report

on the NNL Program (December 1991).

Service response: To date, the NPS has taken the following steps to

advise and inform owners of the 587 existing NNLs about the NNL Program

and the rulemaking process. To confirm the names and addresses of the

nationwide owners of the 587 designated NNLs, the NPS wrote to

approximately 8,000 owners and provided them with a copy of the

proposed revised regulations. Almost all of the owners who submitted

comments on the proposed regulations supported the continuation of the

NNL Program and endorsed the value of the NNL designation.

The NPS believes that NNL owners and other interested organizations

and individuals have had sufficient opportunities to participate in the

rulemaking. Additionally, all of the comments on the proposed rule were

fully considered in developing changes in the final rule. Therefore,

the revised rule is being issued as final.

Comments (major rule): Some respondents disagreed with the

Department of the Interior's determinations, as stated in the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the proposed rule, of the

rulemaking as a non-major rule within the meaning of Executive Order

12291 (46 FR 13193); with the rulemaking as a categorical exclusion

from the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy

Act under Departmental regulations in 516 DM 6 (49 FR 21438); and with

the proposed rule as implying a taking of private property as defined

under Executive Order 12630. Some respondents questioned whether an

assessment of implied taking of private property by the proposed rule

had been completed.

Service response: The NPS completed a takings impact assessment.

The Department determined that the proposed rule did not imply taking

of private property. Executive Order 12291 was revoked by Executive

Order 12866, which is addressed in this final rule.

Comments (legislative authority): Several respondents suggested

that the legislative authority for the NNL Program was insufficient or

non-existent and that the program should be abolished. Several other

respondents noted that the NNL Program served a valuable purpose in

recognizing nationally significant natural features and therefore

should be retained.

Service Response: The NNL Program is based on direction given to

the Secretary of the Interior to identify objects of national

significance contained in Section 1 of the 1935 Historic Sites Act (49

Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.). In addition, since 1962, the

Congress has recognized the NNL Program by including specific

references to national natural landmarks in several acts. For example,

Section 8 of the National Park System General Authorities Act of 1970,

(90 Stat. 1940) as amended (16 U.S.C. 1a-5) directs the Secretary of

the Interior to prepare an annual report to the Congress which

identifies all landmarks which exhibit known or anticipated damage or

threats to the integrity of their resources. Section 9 of the 1976

Mining in the National Parks Act (90 Stat. 1342; 16 U.S.C. 1908)

mandates that whenever the Secretary determines that a landmark may be

irreparably lost or destroyed in whole or in part by any surface mining

activity, the Secretary shall notify the person conducting the activity

and prepare a report to be submitted to the Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation with a request for advice. Finally, the National

Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 authorizes appropriations for

monitoring the welfare and integrity of landmarks. Thus, the 1935 Act,

and subsequent Congressional action provide authority for administering

the NNL Program.

Other Issues

The comments received focused on three major areas of the proposed

revision of the regulations: (1) Requiring consent of owners for the

evaluations and designations of properties, (2) providing owners of

designated NNLs with a mechanism for the removal of the designation and

(3) determining the effects of NNL designation on private property.

Issue 2: Definitions

Comments (definition of prejudicial procedural error): Some

respondents requested that the term ``prejudicial procedural error,''

as a criterion for removal of the NNL designation, be defined in the

regulations.

Service response: This term is already defined in Sec. 62.2 and

Sec. 62.8(a).

Comments (glossary): One respondent suggested that the regulations

include a glossary.

Service Response: Definitions of key terms are already included in

Sec. 62.2.

Comments (definition of owner): Several respondents suggested that

the definition of owner in Sec. 62.2 include owners of partial

interests in land and owners of inholdings and that these owners should

receive the same notifications and have the same opportunity to comment

and agree with the proposed NNL designation of a PNNL. One respondent

noted that owner should specifically be defined by title search. One

respondent noted that the definition of owner should specifically

reference Native American owners.

Service Response: The definition of owner in Sec. 62.2 in the final

rule was clarified to mean holding fee simple title. A change of the

final rule was made to include in this definition Native American

beneficial owners of land held in trust by the United States. Other

persons or organizations are welcome to comment during the designation

a PNNL. Procedures for identifying owners during the second

notification stage of the designation process are specified in

Sec. 62.4(d)(1).

Comments (definition of national significance): Some respondents

questioned the definition of national significance in Sec. 62.2 and the

criteria in Sec. 62.5 as too broad and subjective. Some respondents

noted that a definition and determination of national significance by

natural region as opposed to by nation is inappropriate. One respondent

felt that no standards or guidelines were provided to determine

national significance.

Service Response: As noted in Sec. 62.5, the natural diversity of

the nation is comprised of distinct regional patterns, correlated to

broad physiographic patterns. Therefore, the recognition of distinct

regional ecological and geological features often found in only one of

the country's natural regions, and their comparative assessment

primarily to determine a PNNL relative illustrativeness and condition,

is the approach used by the NNL Program. No change was made in the

final rule.

Comments (other definitions): Some respondents noted that the terms

scientist and evaluator had not been defined in the proposed rule.

Service Response: A definition of scientist has been added to

Sec. 62.2 in the final rule. Section 62.4(c) has been revised to

clarify that evaluators are qualified scientists.

Issue 3: Consent of Owners

Comments (written consent): Several respondents stated that the

requirement in Sec. 62.4(d)(4) for written consent from all owners for

the designation of an area was unnecessary because designation imposes

no regulatory restrictions on owners, was unreasonable because

obtaining the required written consent from all owners of most

multiple-owner properties would be difficult, and would invalidate or

damage the scientific credibility of the program. Some respondents

suggested modifying

[[Page 25710]]

the requirement for affirmative responses from all owners to two-thirds

or the majority of owners. Other respondents felt that an affirmative

response was not necessary and that lack of landowner objection was

sufficient. One respondent noted that, if landowner consent was

required, provisions for protection of designated NNLs must be

stronger, such as requiring Federal agencies to avoid or mitigate

adverse impacts to NNLs.

Service Response: In response to these concerns,

Sec. 62.4(e)(2),(f), and (g)(1) were changed and a new paragraph (d)(5)

was added to show that land owned by a private property owner cannot be

designated when the private property owner involved has stated, in

writing, objection to designation. The NPS believes these changes

appropriately achieve the objectives.

Comments (owner consent for evaluation of PNNL): The proposed rule

included a provision (Sec. 62.4(b)(3)) to allow for the use of other

information sources by the NPS to evaluate a PNNL without entering onto

lands where landowner permission has not been granted. Several

respondents stated that a requirement for written landowner consent for

designation was not sufficient protection of landowner interests and

that the regulations should require written consent, in addition to

written notifications of owners, prior to evaluation of the property by

the NPS for NNL designation. One respondent noted that, if the NPS

elected to complete an evaluation without entering onto lands to which

landowners denied access, owners should be notified of the evaluation.

One respondent noted that, if the NPS elected to use other information

sources for an evaluation without entering lands to which landowners

denied access, the information should originally have been obtained

with owner consent.

Service Response: The NPS believes that the ability to

comparatively evaluate similar or related areas to determine the best

examples of certain ecological or geological features is an essential

part of the NNL Program. Restricting the ability of the NPS to use

existing information sources in completing these evaluations would

significantly impair the program. Therefore, this provision was

retained in the final rule. Section 62.4(b)(3) of the final rule was

changed to show that, when the NPS chooses to complete an evaluation

using only existing information, it informs the owners of the decision.

Comments (consent of entire region): Several respondents suggested

that the regulations require consent from every landowner in the entire

natural region containing the areas under consideration for designation

prior to PNNL evaluations. Some respondents suggested that the consent

of owners of properties adjacent to a PNNL also be required for

evaluation.

Service Response: These suggestions were not adopted in the final

rule. NNL evaluation and designation apply to specific areas, not to

adjacent properties or to entire natural regions.

Comments (notification of existing NNL owners): Several respondents

suggested that the regulations provide a mechanism to request the

removal of NNL designations by property owners. Some respondents

suggested the suspension of all 587 existing NNL designations until

owners consent. One respondent suggested the retention of only existing

NNL designations with which all owners and the appropriate State and

local governments concurred. One respondent suggested that no public

purpose would be served by allowing owners of NNLs the opportunity to

request the removal of designations and that this procedure may lead to

the destruction of some NNL's nationally significant values. One

respondent suggested the review of NPS records of all NNLs to determine

if written owner consent was obtained, whether information about the

areas was gathered by entering land without owner permission, and to

verify the removal from NPS files and destruction of information about

PNNL for which owners did not give consent for designation.

Service Response: Many of the 587 NNLs were designated before 1980,

when program regulations were first issued. Furthermore, program

funding levels during the decade prior to FY 1992 precluded the

comprehensive maintenance of updated documentation of NNL ownership.

Therefore, except as indicated below, the NPS will contact the known

owners of the existing NNLs in writing. This notice advises owners that

they can, within 90 days of this notice, inform in writing the Director

of NPS of their wish to have the NNL designations removed from their

properties. If owners do not respond within 90 days of the NPS

notification, the NNL designations of their properties will be

retained. Under these revised regulations, the properties from which

the designations are removed may be reconsidered for designation if

future changes in ownership or other circumstances warrant such action.

These provisions are reflected in a new section, Sec. 62.8(f), which

the NPS considers to be an appropriate balance between the competing

points of the described views.

For NNLs with more than 50 owners, the NPS may choose to provide a

general notice to owners in one or more newspapers in the area. In

addition, in updating its information on names and addresses of owners

of NNLs, the NPS has learned that six of the 587 NNLs have a

substantially larger and more complex ownership profile than the

remaining 581. Given this, the NPS also reserves the right to consider

boundary modifications of one or more of the six areas (Mobile-Tensaw

River Bottomlands, AL; Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, CA; Ancient

River Warren Channel, MN/SD; Nags Head Woods and Jockey Ridge, NC;

Canaan Valley, WV; and Baraboo Range, WI) as specified in Sec. 62.7 of

the regulations.

Comments (written permission): Some respondents noted that the

requirements in Sec. 62.4(a)(1) and (a)(2)(ii) for owner permission for

entry onto land should specify that this permission should be in

writing.

Service Response: This change has been made in the final rule.

Sections 62.4(a)(1), (a)(2)(ii), and (b)(3) were changed in the final

rule to clarify that the requirement for landowner permission to enter

onto land for PNNL evaluation does not apply to publicly owned lands

that are otherwise open to public visitation. Sections 62.6(c)(1) and

(c)(2) clarified the situation for monitoring landmarks.

Comment (pending designation following evaluation): Some

respondents suggested that the regulations require the NPS to notify

owners of PNNL for which an evaluation was completed, and owners of

PNNL identified in studies of natural regions but were not designated,

and give such owners the right to withdraw from the program.

Service Response: Any future evaluation of PNNL for NNL designation

will be done consistent with the program regulations, which include

specific requirements for the notification of owners and objections by

owners to ensure that owners are fully informed and that private

property owners have the option to withdraw their properties from

consideration. Therefore, no further change is necessary in the final

rule.

Comments (removal of designation): Several respondents recommended

a fourth criterion in Sec. 62.8(a) for the removal of future NNL

designations: request of the landowner to remove the designation. Other

respondents stated their opposition to granting requests for removal of

designations by owners. Several respondents suggested an

[[Page 25711]]

opportunity for owners to request the removal of the NNL designations

of their properties prior to any revision in NNL Program regulations

that affect any possible regulatory obligations of the designations on

owners. Several respondents suggested that, after ownerships changes,

new owners of designated NNLs should be able to request the removal of

designations of their properties.

Service Response: Designation of a PNNL by the Secretary as an NNL

reflects a determination that the site meets the criteria for national

significance and the landowner(s) do not object to the designation.

Provisions in the final rule about landowner notification and objection

are intended to offer owners full opportunity to participate in the

designation process. A program in which an NNL was subject to de-

designation whenever an owner so wished or whenever ownership changed

would be purely honorific and of little value in achieving the program

objectives. Some of these suggestions were therefore not incorporated

into the final rule.

Comments (release of information): One respondent noted that

information on areas, as described under Sec. 62.9(b), should not be

released without private owners' consent. One respondent suggested that

Sec. 62.9(b) also include other reasons for restricted dissemination of

NNL site information, for example, when an owner does not wish

dissemination of information on an area because of concerns over

liability or lack of suitable visitor facilities. Some respondents

noted that the restriction on dissemination of information for certain

ecologically or geologically sensitive areas, as described in

Sec. 62.9(b), would be in violation of the Freedom of Information Act.

One respondent questioned the need for this provision because of the

assumption that owners are voluntarily preserving their NNL property.

Service Response: The NPS considers that Sec. 62.9(b) as proposed

represents an appropriate balance between the policy of availability of

government information, the need to restrict access to information in

certain circumstances, and the requirements of the Freedom of

Information Act and related authorities. No change has been made in the

final rule.

Issue 3: Effects of NNL Designation

Comments (restrictions on use of property): Several respondents

stated that descriptions of the possible effects of NNL designation on

property in Sec. 62.3 of the proposed rule were inaccurate and

incomplete. Several respondents stated that the mere consideration of

PNNL for NNL designation led to restrictions on the use of property in

local, State or Federal regulatory actions; and that, in agreeing to

voluntarily help conserve the area, the landowner was giving up

interests and rights to the property, which constitutes a restriction

on the use of the property.

Service Response: The NPS believes that Sec. 62.3(a) appropriately

describes the possible effects of designation. NNL designation does not

restrict the use and enjoyment of property by Federal action. The NNL

Program provides information on the location and status of important

natural features so that they can be considered in regional planning

for the use and development of a variety of resources. The NPS

encourages owners to protect the nationally significant values of their

property, but this voluntary cooperation does not restrict the owner's

use of his or her land. The voluntary involvement in the program

carries the hope that the owner will not lower the integrity of the

resource being recognized. Landmark designation seeks to assist

regional development planning and decision making by indicating which

resources are relatively significant, and which resources are of lesser

importance.

Comments (other regulations/future restrictions): Some respondents

suggested that the regulations more specifically describe the possible

State and local land use or planning implications of NNL designation on

an area referred to in Sec. 62.3(a); some respondents noted that the

word restrictions be used in place of implications. Other respondents

suggested that the regulations require the NPS to identify and advise

owners of Federal, State, or local legal or regulatory restrictions

that may apply as a result of NNL designation, including possible

future effects of such laws or regulations. Some respondents suggested

the revision of Sec. 62.3(a) to state that there will never be any

future restrictions on the use of an NNL. Several respondents suggested

that the regulations also state that, in addition to possible

implications of Federal, State, or local laws and regulations, in some

cases non-governmental third parties may use the NNL designation to

attempt to influence use or protection of the area. Other respondents

suggested that the descriptions in the regulations of effects also

clarify the benefits of designation. Other respondents stated that the

consideration of areas for NNL designation was a mechanism by the NPS

to identify new areas for addition to the National Park System. One

respondent suggested that the regulations also describe the possible

effects of designation on owners who own property near or adjacent to

the PNNL, such as being required to provide a scenic easement to allow

viewing of the landmark.

Service Response: As noted above, designation of a PNNL as an NNL

reflects the meeting of criteria for national significance and no

landowner objection. One of the objectives of the NNL Program is that

owners and Federal, State and local government agencies will take this

fact into account when making planning or other future land use

decisions. Although this may mean that the decisions may take into

account the national significance of the area, the NPS cannot describe

or predict the extent to which decisions may be influenced by such

designation on lands within or adjacent to areas receiving the NNL

designation. Language was added to Sec. 62.3(a) to clarify that,

although recognition as an NNL may be used to support certain State or

local planning or land use, such State and local actions are not

required or mandated by the Department of the Interior as a consequence

of the NNL designation. Additional language on the beneficial effects

of designation, including possible Federal income-tax benefits from

qualified conservation easement donations, was added to Sec. 62.3(b).

The title, Implications of Designation, was revised in Sec. 62.3 to

``Effects of NNL Designation.''

Designation of a PNNL as a national natural landmark is one method

used by the Department for recognizing and encouraging the preservation

of nationally significant areas as an alternative to Federal

acquisition of them for inclusion in the National Park System. Although

national natural landmarks have occasionally been subsumed in

subsequently created units of the National Park System, and national

natural landmarks can be designated in existing national park units,

natural landmark designation is not necessarily a first step that ends

in adding the area to the National Park System. In considering a

possible new addition to the National Park System, the NPS must first

determine that an area is nationally significant. While prior

designation as an NNL is one indication of national significance, there

are several other criteria that must be met before the NPS can support

a proposal for a new national park. An area must meet criteria for

suitability and feasibility to qualify as a potential addition to the

National Park System. To be suitable for inclusion in the System an

area must represent a natural

[[Page 25712]]

or cultural theme or type of recreational resource that is not already

adequately represented in the National Park System or is not comparably

represented and protected for public enjoyment by another land-managing

entity. To be feasible as a new unit of the National Park System an

area's natural landscape and or historic settings must be of sufficient

size and appropriate configuration to ensure long-term protection of

the resources and to accommodate public use. It must also have

potential for efficient administration at a reasonable cost. Other

important feasibility factors include land ownership, acquisition

costs, access, threats to the resource, and staff or development

requirements. Lastly, in all but exceptional circumstances, the

Congress must authorize by statute and then appropriate funds for the

acquisition of any new unit of the National Park System, or for the

significant expansion of existing units.

Comments (effects of designation): One respondent suggested that,

as part of the first notification in Sec. 62.4(b), the NPS specify to

the owners what consent to NNL designation entails and that a copy of

the potential owner consent agreement be provided to the owner as part

of the first notification.

Service Response: Information provided to owners as part of first

notification under Sec. 62.4(b)(1) and (2) includes an explanation of

the effects of NNL designation, as described in Sec. 62.3. A change was

also made in Sec. 62.4(b)(1) and (2) in the final rule to clarify that

the information provided at this stage also includes an explanation of

the designation process.

Issue 5: Area Information

Comments (obtaining area information): Several respondents

suggested that the NPS not retain information on PNNL at any stage in

the designation process if owners were not informed of this

consideration and had not given their consent to having their property

considered for designation. One respondent suggested that

Sec. 62.4(a)(2)(ii) be changed to specify that the NPS will not

consider information recommending a PNNL for possible NNL

consideration, when such information was obtained by entering onto land

without landowner permission, regardless of whether such information

came from NPS or non-NPS sources. Several respondents suggested that

the NPS be required to provide positive proof that all information used

in the designation process was legally obtained and that any

information when such proof did not exist be destroyed. Some

respondents suggested that the NPS retain all properly acquired

information on designated and non-designated areas.

Service Response: The NPS believes that the management and analysis

of information on NNL areas, and PNNL under consideration in the NNL

process, are important objectives of the NNL Program. This information

adds to the comparative national-level resource information base used

in identifying and comparing nationally significant resources and also

furthers informed planning and environmental review. The NPS is also

interested in ensuring that information used in the NNL Program is

obtained with the knowledge of the landowner and without entering onto

private property without permission of the owners. The NPS believes

that the final rule establishes an appropriate balance between these

property owner concerns and the information required to achieve program

objectives.

Comments (retention of area information): Several respondents

suggested that as stated in Sec. 62.4(f) the NPS not retain any

information on areas that meet the criteria of national significance

but were not designated because of owner objection. Some respondents

suggested that the NPS publish the list of PNNL that meet the criteria

for national significance but were not designated.

Service Response: A change was made in Sec. 62.4(f) of the final

rule to show that the NPS will notify owners and others of the decision

to retain information on PNNL that meet the criteria for national

significance but were not designated because of owner objection.

Comment (authority for area information retention): One respondent

requested that the NPS cite the authority for the statement made in the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the proposed rule that NPS has an

affirmative responsibility to maintain information on nationally

significant resources and to make this information available for

planning and environmental review.

Service Response: General authorities for these actions are

described in the legal authorities response above. In addition Section

102(2)C of the National Environmental Policy Act (83 Stat. 852; 42

U.S.C. 4321) directs Federal agencies to consider the effects of agency

action on the environment. Information on unique resources such as

those contained in the NNL Program facilitates such planning and

evaluation. Section 9 of the Mining in National Parks Act of 1976 (90

Stat. 1342, 16 U.S.C. 1908) mandates that whenever the Secretary of the

Interior determines that an NNL may be irreparably lost or destroyed by

any surface mining activity, the Secretary shall notify the person

conducting the activity, submit a report to the Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation, and request the Council's advice concerning

means to mitigate or abate such activity. This mandate presupposes the

collection and retention of information concerning such potentially

impacted NNLs. Additionally, Section 8 of the National Park System

General Authorities Act of 1970 (90 Stat. 1970), as amended (16 U.S.C.

1a-5), specifically requires the Secretary to investigate, study and

continually monitor the welfare of areas whose resources exhibit

qualities of national significance.

Comments (area information access): One respondent suggested that

the NPS provide reasonable access to all NPS information on PNNL at any

point in the designation process, not just during specified

notification or comment periods. One respondent suggested that the

regulations require the NPS to maintain current information on owners

and to maintain complete records of all communications with owners and

proof that all notification and consent requirements were met.

Service Response: With this program, the NPS maintains records on

PNNL and NNL areas, notifications of and communications with owners,

and other program activities. This information is available to the

public, subject to requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and

other applicable statutes. No change was therefore made in the final

rule.

Issue 6: Designation Process--Suggestion

Comments: Several respondents suggested the revision of

Sec. 62.4(a)(2) to allow other (non-NPS) entities the ability to make

suggestions of only publicly owned areas for NNL consideration. Some

respondents suggested that suggestions of privately owned areas for

consideration be accepted only from owners of proposed properties and

that the appropriate government entity propose publicly owned areas

after an open public review of the suggestion. Some respondents

suggested only owners who owned all of the property could suggest an

area for consideration. Some respondents noted that areas owned by

State or local governments could be suggested by private advocacy

groups, but only in a public political process. Several respondents

suggested that all information used to suggest PNNL for possible NNL

consideration should be

[[Page 25713]]

accompanied by proof of landowner permission to enter private property.

Service Response: A fundamental aspect of the NNL Program is the

open process for suggesting areas for NNL designation by any interested

agencies, organizations or individuals. The NPS believes the provisions

for landowner notification and objection in the final rule ensure that

owners are fully informed of and involved in the consideration of their

property in the NNL process and give other interested groups and

individuals the opportunity for input into this process without

restricting the interests of the owners. Therefore, no change is made

in Sec. 62.4(a)(2) of the final rule that restricts the sources of PNNL

suggestions.

The NPS believes the requirements for the NPS or its

representatives not to enter onto private property without owner

permission as stated in these regulations are sufficient to protect

owner interests. Additional requirements for the NPS to ascertain the

origins of PNNL information in this regard would not be a prudent means

to achieve program objectives and would put the NPS in the position of

having to determine whether particular conduct constitutes trespass

under applicable law. When trespass occurs, property owners may

exercise legal remedies under State and local law. Therefore,

Sec. 62.4(a)(2)(ii) and (a)(3) were changed in the final rule to

eliminate the requirement that the NPS ascertain whether information on

PNNL under consideration was acquired by entering onto private property

without landowner permission. These changes take into account the

ability of property owners to object to designation and the

inappropriateness of a government agency ignoring factual resource

information simply because of the information's origins.

Comments (source of suggestion): Several respondents suggested

that, as part of the first notification stage described in

Sec. 62.4(b)(1), the NPS inform the owners of the source of the

suggestion of their property for NNL consideration.

Service Response: This change has been made in Sec. 62.4(b)(1) and

(2) of the final rule.

Issue 7: Designation Process--Notification

Comment (notification process): One respondent suggested that the

regulations specify that first notification of owners be by certified

mail.

Service Response: Although the NPS may elect to complete the

required notification of owners by certified mail, specification of the

type of mail for notification in the regulations is not necessary. No

change is made in the final rule.

Comment (second notification): Some respondents suggested that the

information provided to owners and others as part of the second

notification under Sec. 62.4(d) should specifically reference the

required monitoring and reporting for designated areas as specified in

Sec. 62.6.

Service Response: Section 62.4(d) includes a reference to

Sec. 62.3. As Sec. 62.3 already includes specific references to

Sec. 62.6 and the required monitoring and reporting, no change was

necessary in the final rule.

Comments (areas with 50 or more owners): Some respondents noted

that the requirement in Sec. 62.4(b)(2) for individual notifications of

owners for areas with 50 or more owners, in addition to a public notice

and possible public meeting, was excessive and that this would add

unnecessarily to the cost and time of the designation process. One

respondent misinterpreted Sec. 62.4(b)(2) to mean that the NPS would

not be providing written notifications to owners of areas with less

than 50 owners.

Service Response: First notification requirements for areas with

less than 50 owners are specified in Sec. 62.4(b)(1). A change was made

in Sec. 62.4 (b)(2) of the final rule. The NPS publishes a general

notice in one or more local newspapers. Written notice to all owners of

areas with more than 50 owners is not provided.

Comment (response time): One respondent suggested that a time

period be specified for receiving responses from owners after first

notification.

Service Response: As specified in Sec. 62.4(b)(3), the NPS or its

representative does not enter onto private property to evaluate a PNNL

without receiving permission from the owner(s) of that property. No

time limit is being set for receiving this landowner permission. No

change is made in the final rule.

Comments (comment period following second notification): Some

respondents noted that the extension of the comment period from 60 to

120 days after the second notification, as specified in Sec. 62.4(d)(3)

and (4), was excessive.

Service Response: In response to these comments, Sec. 62.4(d)(4)

and (5) were changed in the final rule to specify a 60-day comment

period. In addition, the comment period relating to designation removal

also was changed to 60 days in Sec. 62.8(c). In both cases, 60 days are

considered an adequate period that may be extended when warranted.

Comments (notification of local government): One respondent

suggested that the first notification specified in Sec. 62.4(b) be

given to the appropriate local government agency and to owners. Some

respondents suggested that the NPS hold a local public meeting or

hearing on every PNNL being considered for NNL designation.

Service Response: As part of the first notification process, notice

is provided to owners, as specified in Sec. 62.4(b)(1) and (2),

informing them that the NPS is considering their properties for

designation and requesting owner permission to conduct an on-site

evaluation. After the evaluation, when the NPS determines that an area

seems to meet the criteria for national significance, written notice of

the proposal is provided under Sec. 62.4(d)(3)(i) to the local

government executive at the second notification stage. Section

62.4(d)(2) was changed in the final rule to provide as part of the

second notification an opportunity for the NPS to hold a public

information meeting for areas with 50 or more owners if public interest

warrants or it is requested by the local governmental jurisdiction.

This provision was therefore deleted from first notification in

Sec. 62.4(b)(2).

Comment (notification of Native Americans): One respondent

suggested that the requirements for notification of local, State, and

Federal government officials and other interested parties provided

under Sec. 62.4(d)(3), Sec. 62.4(j), Sec. 62.7(b) and Sec. 62.8(e)

specifically include Native American tribal governments and communities

and native villages and corporations.

Service Response: This change has been made in the final rule.

Comments (notification mailing list): One respondent suggested that

the regulations include a provision that allows interested individuals

and organizations to request placement on a general NPS notification

mailing list to be notified of pending evaluations under

Sec. 62.4(d)(3)(vi) and of other public comment periods. This

respondent also suggested that the list of individuals and

organizations be available for public review. One respondent suggested

that the regulations require the NPS to notify all organizations

interested in protecting private property rights of all future

evaluations.

Service Response: Any individual or organization may request

placement on a mailing list to receive future notifications or other

program documents about consideration of areas for NNL designation or

of other program actions and NPS will respond if needed.

[[Page 25714]]

Issue 8: Designation Process--Area Evaluation

Comments (evaluation report): One respondent suggested that the

evaluation report, as described in Sec. 62.4(c)(1), include a proposed

boundary for the site. One respondent suggested that first, second, and

third notifications provided to owners under Sec. 62.4(b), (d) and (j)

include a full description of the area, including the size and a

detailed map of the area. One respondent suggested that the draft

evaluation report be distributed to all owners for comment within a

specified time period or the evaluation becomes null and void and must

be re-done in the future.

Service Response: Section 62.4(c)(1) was changed in the final rule

to specifically include a proposed boundary map as part of the

evaluation report. Sec. 62.4(d)(1) and (2) were changed in the final

rule to specify that, as part of the second notification process,

owners are provided a copy of the area evaluation report.

Comments (peer review): Some respondents expressed support for the

requirement in Sec. 62.4(c)(2) for three peer reviews of completed

evaluation reports. One respondent suggested that this provision be

deleted, stating that outside peer reviewers should have no role in the

NNL designation process.

Service Response: The NPS believes peer reviews can substantially

add to the objectivity of the consideration process; therefore, this

provision is retained in the final rule. One respondent suggested that

the regulations should state that peer reviewers must be qualified

scientists and not just preferably be scientists. This change has been

made in Sec. 62.4(c)(2) of the final rule.

Issue 9: Designation Process--Advisory Board

Comments (Advisory Board role and composition): Some respondents

suggested that the National Park System Advisory Board not be involved

in the consideration and recommendation of PNNL for NNL designation, as

required under Sec. 62.4(g)(1), unless the board consists of

individuals with appropriate scientific backgrounds who are qualified

to make such recommendations. Some respondents noted that the

designation process, as described particularly in Sec. 62.4(g) and (h),

included too many review levels, including the Director, Assistant

Secretary, Advisory Board and Secretary, to be effective.

Service Response: As noted in the proposed rule, section 1211 of

Public Law 101-628 (16 U.S.C. 463) requires the National Park System

Advisory Board to provide recommendations to the Secretary on NNL

designations. This law also indicates the composition of the board

include members who are competent in biology or geology. No change was

made in the final rule about the role of the Advisory Board. Sections

62.4(g), (h), and (i), and 62.7(d) were changed in the final rule to

eliminate the requirement for the Director to provide NNL materials

through the Assistant Secretary.

Comment (procedural requirements): One respondent suggested that

the Advisory Board, in addition to reviewing whether PNNL qualified for

NNL designation, also review whether procedural requirements had been

met.

Service Response: Section 62.4(g)(1) specifies that the Director

submits to the Advisory Board only areas that meet the criteria for

national significance and for areas where all procedural requirements

were met. Therefore, no change was needed in the final rule.

Comment (Advisory Board meetings): One respondent suggested the

notice of Advisory Board meetings, specified in Sec. 62.4(g)(2), in

addition to being published in the Federal Register, be mailed to the

owners of PNNL that will be considered at these meetings in addition to

being published in the Federal Register.

Service Response: This change has been made in the final rule.

Issue 10: Designation Process--Recommendation to Advisory Board

Comments (national significance): One respondent suggested a

standard of impracticality due to a large number of owners be added to

Sec. 62.5 in addition to the standard of impracticality due to physical

size of the feature. One respondent suggested that the national

significance criteria include objective standards for area boundaries.

Service Response: Considerations about area ownership are distinct

from the criteria for determining national significance; ownership

considerations are in Sec. 62.4. Area boundaries are discussed in

Sec. 62.4(c)(1).

Issue 11: Designation Process--Other Environmental Regulations

Comment (environmental and economic impact statements): One

respondent suggested that the NPS should be required to complete an

environmental impact statement and an economic impact statement for

each area considered for NNL designation.

Service Response: The development of standards for the

identification, nomination, or designation of national natural

landmarks or national historic landmarks is categorically excluded from

the National Environmental Policy Act process under the implementation

guidelines developed by the NPS under the Act. Additionally, an

economic impact statement is not required for activities related to

listing. No change was made in the final rule.

Comments (mining): Some respondents suggested that the possible

implications of the Mining in National Parks Act, as described in

Sec. 62.6(e), be more fully explained in the regulations. Some

respondents noted that the definition of surface mining under this act

was not clear. One respondent questioned whether the definition of

surface mining may include owner-authorized scientific, archeological

or paleontological excavations at the area. Some respondents noted that

what types of actions the Federal government could take to mitigate or

abate surface mining that may cause irreparable loss or destruction of

an NNL were unclear. Some respondents noted that actions to mitigate or

abate surface mining may constitute a taking of private property and

that this would be a contradiction of Sec. 62.3(b).

Service Response: The Mining in the National Park System Act (16

U.S.C. 1908) applies to mining and mineral extraction activities, not

to paleontological or archeological excavations. The act does not

directly authorize the Secretary or the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation to take any action to mitigate or abate surface mining

activities that are found to be damaging national historic or natural

landmarks. No change was made in the final rule.

Comment (NEPA): One respondent suggested that Sec. 62.6(f), which

provides for Federal agencies to consider NNL existence and location as

part of their compliance with NEPA, be deleted.

Service Response: Federal agencies are required under NEPA to

assess the effects of their actions on the environment which include

potential impacts to exceptional natural areas like national natural

landmarks. No change was made in the final rule.

Issue 12: Designation Process--Designation

Comments (county records): Some respondents suggested that

existence of the designation be recorded as part of the county lands

records; other respondents suggested that the designation should be

recorded on the deed.

Service Response: Because the NPS has no regulatory authority over

owners regarding the NNL designation, the NPS cannot mandate that the

NNL

[[Page 25715]]

designation be recorded with property deeds or other lands records;

neither is there anything in these regulations to prevent interested

owners from recording the fact of the designation in such a fashion.

Therefore, no change was made in the final rule.

Comment (acceptance of designation implies contractual

arrangement): One respondent suggested that by accepting a certificate

or plaque from the NPS recognizing the NNL designation, as specified in

Sec. 62.4(k)(1), the landowner enters into a contractual arrangement

with the NPS that would somehow obligate the landowner to protect the

NNL.

Service Response: As suggested above, no contractual or otherwise

binding obligation is involved in a landowner's voluntary consent to

having his or her properties considered for NNL designation. Neither is

there any legal obligation on the part of the landowners to protect NNL

after having accepted a certificate or plaque. A change was made in

Sec. 62.4(k)(1) of the final rule to clarify this point.

Issue 13: Monitoring

Comment (periodic contacts): One respondent suggested that the

regulations clarify the meaning of NPS making periodic contacts with

NNL owners by defining the frequency and nature of these contacts.

Service Response: NPS contacts with owners are generally informal

letters or telephone calls to exchange information about the NNL,

provide technical assistance, update ownership name and address

information, and so on. The NPS also conducts periodic visits to an

NNL, with the permission of owner(s), for example, to inspect site

condition or meet with owner(s) in person. The exact frequencies of the

contacts cannot be specified because they depend on circumstances and

events. No change was made in the final rule.

Comment (protection guidelines): One respondent suggested that the

NPS be required to give owners guidelines or recommendations for

protecting NNLs.

Service Response: As suggested above, the NPS does not dictate or

direct landowner actions with regard to use or conservation of an NNL.

In some cases, the NPS may be able to provide technical advice about

the NNL resources and their conservation. This is done at the request

of the landowner and is subject to availability of necessary expertise

by NPS.

Comment (permission for monitoring visits): Some respondents

suggested that Sec. 62.6(c)(2) specify that written permission of

owners is required before the NPS or its representatives enter onto

land for monitoring NNL condition.

Service Response: The NPS does not believe that development of a

formal written landowner permission process is necessary for monitoring

visits. Non-written permission (e.g., via telephone) is obtained for

each visit. Section 62.6(c)(2) has been changed in the final rule to

specify that landowner permission is not required for monitoring visits

of public lands that are otherwise open to the public.

Comment (participation in monitoring visits): One respondent

suggested that owners should be allowed to participate in any NNL

monitoring visits and contribute information to the monitoring report.

Service Response: The NPS encourages owners to accompany the

individual making the monitoring visit. Contributions of information by

owners to the monitoring report are also welcomed and encouraged.

Comments (monitoring report): One respondent suggested that owners

be notified of who completed monitoring reports of their properties and

be given copies of the reports. One respondent suggested that the NPS

give copies of the entire final Section 8 report, not only pertinent

portions of the report, to owners and to other parties who requested

them.

Service Response: The respective changes were made in

Sec. 62.6(c)(2) and (d)(2). In addition, as suggested in

Sec. 62.6(d)(1), owners of NNLs listed as damaged or threatened in the

draft Section 8 Report are provided opportunities to review and comment

on the draft report.

Comments (comment period): Some respondents suggested that

Sec. 62.6(d)(1) be revised to allow a 60-day or 90-day comment period,

instead of a 30-day comment period, on the draft Section 8 report each

year.

Service Response: Because this report is prepared annually, a 60-

day or 90-day review of the draft report is impractical. No change was

made in the final rule.

Comment (transmitting comments to Congress): One respondent

suggested the Secretary transmit to the Congress any comments by owners

on the Section 8 report.

Service Response: The Secretary is required, under the National

Park System General Authorities Act (90 Stat. 1940) as amended (16

U.S.C. 1a-5), to transmit this report to the Congress. Transmission of

the landowners' comments on the report is not required. Individuals or

organizations are, of course, free to submit any materials on this or

any other issue to the Congress. No change was made in the final rule.

Comments (effect of monitoring report): One respondent suggested

the regulations clarify that a probable consequence of having an NNL

listed in the Section 8 report is condemnation of private land for

government acquisition. One respondent suggested that the regulations

explain that, as part of the Section 8 report, the Secretary is also

required to recommend NNLs listed in this report for study for addition

to the National Park System.

Service Response: Condemnation of private land for government

acquisition is not a probable consequence of listing an NNL in the

Section 8 report. The fact that the Secretary is required by 16 U.S.C.

1a-5 to provide a report of damaged or threatened NNLs to the Congress

and to recommend qualified NNLs for consideration for possible addition

to the National Park System does not require subsequent action by the

Congress or the Department. A change has been made in Sec. 62.6(b) of

the final rule to clarify this point.

Comments (third parties): Several respondents suggested that the

regulations eliminate or restrict the involvement of third party

organizations or individuals (non-landowner, non-governmental) in the

designation and monitoring process. Other respondents suggested that

the NPS must ensure the objectivity of these processes and develop

procedures to avoid possible conflicts of interest where third parties

are suggesting PNNL for consideration, completing or reviewing site

evaluations, or monitoring the conditions of designated NNLs. Several

respondents suggested the NPS not be allowed to enter into any

agreements or contracts with any other agencies, organizations, groups

or individuals as specified in Sec. 62.9(a), except when these

agencies, groups or individuals are consenting NNL owners. Other

respondents suggested that the reference in Sec. 62.6(b) to the use of

outside individuals, agencies or organizations to monitor the status of

selected NNLs be deleted. One respondent suggested that the regulations

prohibit owners from developing or having any substantive contributions

of information to the evaluations of their properties for NNL

designation because of conflict of interest.

Service Response: In administering the NNL Program, the NPS ensures

that any agreements or arrangements with non-NPS organizations or

individuals do not have possible conflict of interest implications.

Owner consent to such administrative actions is not appropriate, nor

would it be appropriate to exclude owners from the designation

[[Page 25716]]

process. No change is made in the final rule.

Issue 14: Boundary Adjustments

Comment (boundary modifications): One respondent suggested that the

provision in Sec. 62.7(a) for modifying NNL boundaries allows the NPS

to take over private land and should therefore be deleted.

Service Response: The NPS does not ``take over'' private land by

landmark designation. As noted above, the NNL Program provides

information on the location and status of important natural features.

The voluntary cooperation of private property owners does not restrict

the owner's use of his or her land. No change is made in the final rule

based on this comment.

Comment (modification of nationally-significant values): One

respondent questioned the need for a provision, as described in

Sec. 62.7(a), to allow for modifications in the description of an NNL's

nationally significant values if scientists had correctly identified

all nationally significant values during the original designation

process.

Service Response: This section is retained in the final rule

because new information may be discovered or conditions of an NNL may

change.

Comment (procedure reference): One respondent suggested that

Sec. 62.7(b) be revised to reference Sec. 62.4(b) through Sec. 62.4(j)

when referring to the expansion of the boundaries of an NNL.

Service Response: This change was made in the final rule.

Comments (minor boundary adjustments): Some respondents suggested

that what constituted a minor boundary correction under Sec. 62.8(e)

was unclear. One respondent suggested that minor be defined to mean

that boundary corrections involve only properties owned by existing,

willing NNL owners. Another respondent suggested that Sec. 62.7(e)

specify that such minor technical corrections only can be made with

owner consent. One respondent suggested that the NPS should notify

owners of any minor technical boundary corrections under Sec. 62.7(e).

Service Response: Section 62.7(e) was changed in the final rule to

include a provision for notifying owners in advance of any proposed

minor technical boundary corrections or other administrative changes in

documentation. Dependent on owner response to this notification, the

NPS will determine whether the proposed changes constitute such minor

technical corrections or whether the procedures outlined under

Sec. 62.4(d) through (j) should be followed. In addition, Sec. 62.7(e)

was changed in the final rule to define a minor boundary correction as

one that represents a change in less than five percent of the original

total land area of the NNL.

Comment (boundary delineation): One respondent suggested the

addition of a section to the regulations to provide for completion of

previously incomplete delineations of boundaries of NNLs.

Service Response: Section 62.7 provides for adjustment of NNL

boundaries, including completion of previously incomplete boundary

delineations. No change was therefore needed in the final rule.

Issue 15: Removal of Designation

Comment (peer review): One respondent suggested that, when the

removal of an NNL designation is considered under Sec. 62.8(b), one of

the three peer reviewers of any evaluation removal process be from the

NPS to eliminate bias.

Service Response: When possible, the NPS uses non-NPS evaluators

and peer reviewers to obtain objective, scientific advice for

particular areas and types of resources. In general, NPS

representatives do not serve as peer reviewers. The NPS reviews all

information available, as described in Sec. 62.8(b), before determining

that an area no longer seems to merit designation as an NNL.

Comments (area information retention): Some respondents suggested

that information on areas from which NNL designations were removed

under Sec. 62.8 not be retained by the NPS.

Service Response: The NPS maintains information as required under

Federal records management regulations. Information on areas from which

the designations were removed is also maintained to provide a

documented record of the actions, decisions, notifications and other

pertinent information for the NNL Program. No change was made in the

final rule.

Issue 16: Miscellaneous Comments

Comment (American Indians): One respondent suggested that the types

of agencies and organizations with which NPS may enter into agreements,

as described in Sec. 62.9(a), specifically include Native American

tribal governments and native villages, corporations and communities.

Service Response: This change was made in the final rule.

Comments (area information dissemination): One respondent suggested

that the dissemination of information on NNLs associated with Native

American religious or other traditional uses may reveal such sensitive

information. One respondent suggested that, although it was acceptable

for the NPS to limit information dissemination on ecologically or

geologically fragile NNLs, the NPS also make a greater effort to

disseminate educational information on other NNLs and on the NNL

Program.

Service Response: The NPS considers that its general programs and

policies about education, protection of sensitive information and

culturally significant properties are sufficient. Therefore, no change

was made in the final rule.

Comment (procedures handbook): One respondent suggested that the

NPS make the program procedures handbook, described in the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section to the proposed rule, available for

public comment.

Service Response: The program handbook is an internal NPS

administrative manual for which public comment is not required. Copies

of the completed handbook will be available to the interested public on

request. No change was made in the final rule.

Comment (program documents): One respondent suggested that the NPS

be required to maintain and publish an updated list of all NNL Program

procedural documents.

Service Response: The already mentioned program handbook will

reference and describe other program procedural documents. No change

was made in the final rule.

Comments (lawsuits/penalties): Some respondents suggested that the

regulations include provisions for civil lawsuits to recover costs,

damages and attorney fees if their properties had been evaluated or

designated without their consents. Several respondents suggested that

the regulations provide for penalties for NPS employees who violate the

regulations or otherwise violate landowner rights.

Service Response: The NPS does not believe these measures are

necessary, or within its legal authority, and therefore no change was

made in the final rule.

Other minor editorial changes were made in the final rule. These

changes were to improve readability or clarity.

Drafting information

Authors participating in this rulemaking came from the National

Park Service, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fish and

Wildlife and Parks and the Office of the Solicitor.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain collections of information requiring

approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995. The notification letter which NPS sends

[[Page 25717]]

to landowners requesting their views about NNL designation is

specifically exempted from Paperwork Reduction considerations according

to Departmental guidelines (381 DM Chapter 2, Appendix 1) under A

certifications, consents or acknowledgments. The status form used by

NPS to monitor condition of designated NNLs for the annual Section 8

report is primarily filled out by NPS personnel. In some cases, it is

completed by NNL patrons, i.e. scientists and others who volunteer to

monitor the condition of selected NNLs on behalf of NPS. In other

cases, it is filled out by area managers of other Federal or State

agencies who own NNLs. It is NPS opinion that completion of the form is

not solicited from private individual owners of NNLs and therefore not

applicable under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Compliance With Other Laws

This rule was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget

review under Executive Order 12866. The Department of the Interior has

determined that this document will not have a significant economic

effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) or require the preparation of a

regulatory analysis. The effect of the revisions made herein ensures

that owners, including but not limited to local governments, small

businesses, and other small organizations, are fully notified in

advance and have the opportunity to comment on the proposed National

natural landmark designation and that property is not included in a

designation where an owner objects to designation. The total estimated

economic effects of this rule on small entities are therefore

negligible.

The revisions ensure that all owners are fully notified in advance

of the agency's consideration of their properties as potential national

natural landmarks, that private properties are not entered for purposes

of evaluation without owner permission, and that property is not

designated where private property owners have indicated their objection

to the designation in a manner specified.

The NPS has determined and certifies pursuant to the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this rule will not

impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local, state

or tribal governments or private entities.

The Department has determined that this rule meets the applicable

standards provided in Section 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order

12988.

This rule is not a major rule under the Congressional review

provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5

U.S.C. 804(2)).

The NPS has determined that this rulemaking will not have a

significant effect on the quality of the human environment, health and

safety because it is not expected to:

(a) Increase public use to the extent of compromising the nature

and character of the area or causing physical damage to it;

(b) Introduce incompatible uses that may compromise the nature and

characteristics of the area, or cause physical damage to it;

(c) Conflict with adjacent ownerships or land uses; or

(d) Cause a nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants. Based on this

determination, this rulemaking is categorically excluded from the

procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

by Departmental guidelines in 516 DM 6 (49 FR 21438). As such, neither

an Environmental Assessment (EA) nor an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) has been prepared.

The Department of the Interior has reviewed this rule as directed

by Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with

Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, to determine whether this

rule includes policies that imply the taking of private properties. The

Department determined that this rule does not imply the taking of

private properties because it does not deny economically viable use of

any distinct, legally protected property interest to its owner or to

have the effect of, or result in, a permanent or temporary physical

occupation, invasion or deprivation. National natural landmark

designation does not change ownership of property and does not dictate

use of designated property. The effects of the revisions are the

strengthening and clarification of notification of owners that

properties are being considered, the explicit preclusion of entry onto

private property for purposes of program area evaluation without owner

permission, and the preclusion of designations of areas where the

majority of the private property owners indicated their objection as

specified.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 62

Natural resources.

In consideration of the foregoing, 36 CFR Chapter I is amended as

follows:

1. 36 CFR Part 62 is revised to read as follows:

PART 62--NATIONAL NATURAL LANDMARKS PROGRAM

Sec.

62.1 Purpose.

62.2 Definitions.

62.3 Effects of designation.

62.4 Natural landmark designation and recognition process.

62.5 Natural landmark criteria.

62.6 Natural landmark monitoring.

62.7 Natural landmark modifications.

62.8 Natural landmark designation removal.

62.9 General provisions.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1a-5, 461 et seq., 463, 1908.

Sec. 62.1 Purpose

The procedures in this part set forth the processes and criteria

for the identification, evaluation, designation and monitoring of

national natural landmarks.

(a) The National Natural Landmarks Program focuses attention on

areas of exceptional natural value to the nation as a whole rather than

to one particular State or locality. The program recognizes areas

preserved by Federal, State and local agencies as well as private

organizations and individuals and encourages the owners of national

natural landmarks to voluntarily observe preservation precepts.

(b) The National Natural Landmarks Program identifies and preserves

natural areas that best illustrate the biological and geological

character of the United States, enhances the scientific and educational

values of preserved areas, strengthens public appreciation of natural

history, and fosters a greater concern for the conservation of the

nation's natural heritage.

Sec. 62.2 Definitions.

The following definitions apply to this part:

National Natural Landmark is an area designated by the Secretary of

the Interior as being of national significance to the United States

because it is an outstanding example(s) of major biological and

geological features found within the boundaries of the United States or

its Territories or on the Outer Continental Shelf.

National Registry of Natural Landmarks is the official listing of

all designated national natural landmarks.

National significance describes an area that is one of the best

examples of a biological community or geological feature within a

natural region of the United States, including terrestrial communities,

landforms, geological features and processes, habitats of native plant

and animal species, or fossil evidence of the development of life.

[[Page 25718]]

Natural region is a distinct physiographic province having similar

geologic history, structures, and landforms. The basic physiographic

characteristics of a natural region influence its vegetation, climate,

soils, and animal life. Examples include the Atlantic Coastal Plain,

Great Basin, and Brooks Range natural regions.

Owner means the individual(s), corporation(s), or partnership(s)

holding fee simple title to property, or the head of the public agency

or subordinate employee of the public agency to whom such authority was

delegated and who is responsible for administering publicly owned land.

Owner does not include individuals, partnerships, corporations, or

public agencies holding easements or less than fee interests (including

leaseholds) of any form. A Native American tribe that is the beneficial

fee simple owner of lands, with the United States as trustee, will be

considered as owner of private property for the purposes of this part.

Similarly, individual member(s) of a Native American tribe who are

beneficial owner(s) of property, allottee(s) held in trust by the

United States, will be considered as owner(s) of private property for

the purposes of this part.

Potential national natural landmark means an area that, based on

recommendation or initial comparison with other areas in the same

natural region, seems to merit further study of its merits for possible

national natural landmark designation.

Prejuducial procedural error is one that reasonably may be

considered to have affected the outcome of the designation process.

Representative refers to any public or private individual, agency,

or organization that is performing actions related to the

identification, evaluation, designation or monitoring of national

natural landmarks on behalf of or in cooperation with the National Park

Service (NPS), either under a contractual agreement or as a volunteer.

Scientist refers to an individual whose combination of academic

training and professional field experience in the natural region

qualifies him/her to identify and comparatively evaluate natural areas

at the regional or national level.

Sec. 62.3 Effects of designation.

(a) Designation of an area by the Secretary as a national natural

landmark is not a land withdrawal, does not change the ownership of an

area, and does not dictate activity. However, Federal agencies consider

the unique properties of designated national natural landmarks and of

areas that meet the criteria for national significance in their

planning and impact analysis (see Sec. 62.6(f)), and there may be State

or local planning or land use implications. Designation as a national

natural landmark does not require or mandate under Federal law any

further State or local planning, zoning or other land-use action or

decision. Owners who agree to have their lands designated as a national

natural landmark do not give up under Federal law any legal rights and

privileges of ownership or use of the area. The Department does not

gain any property interests in these lands.

(b) Benefits of national natural landmark designation include the

positive recognition and appreciation of nationally significant

resources and the ability of public agencies and private individuals

and organizations to make more informed development and planning

decisions early in regional planning processes. In addition, some

private owners of commercially operated national natural landmarks that

are open to public visitation may choose to recognize and emphasize the

national significance of the areas by providing descriptive information

to the public. Under section 170(h) of the United States Internal

Revenue Code, some owners of national natural landmarks may be eligible

to claim a charitable contribution deduction on their Federal income

tax for qualified interests in their natural landmark property donated

for a qualified conservation purpose to a qualified conservation

organization.

(c) The Secretary will provide an annual report to the Congress on

damaged or threatened designated national natural landmarks (see

Sec. 62.6(b)). The Secretary will also report to the Advisory Council

on Historic Preservation any designated national natural landmarks that

may be irreparably lost or destroyed by surface mining activity (see

Sec. 62.6(e)).

Sec. 62.4 Natural landmark designation and recognition process.

(a) Identification. Potential national natural landmarks are

identified in the following manner.

(1) Natural region studies. The NPS conducts inventories of the

characteristic biological and geological features in each natural

region to provide a scientific basis for identifying potential national

natural landmarks. The NPS is responsible for the completion of these

studies, which are generally done by qualified scientists under

contract. A study provides a classification and description of

biological and geological features in that natural region and an

annotated list of areas that illustrate those features. During a study,

the NPS or any representative of the NPS may enter onto land only after

receiving written permission from the owner(s) of that land, except

when the land is publicly owned land and otherwise open to the public.

(2) Other entities. (i) Any public or private entity may suggest an

area for study and possible national natural landmark designation. The

entities include:

(A) Federal agency programs that conduct inventories in order to

identify areas of special interest, for example, essential wildlife

habitat, research natural areas, and areas of critical environmental

concern; and

(B) State natural area programs that systematically and

comprehensively classify, identify, locate and assess the protective

status of the biological and geological features located in a State.

(ii) If an individual, agency or organization that suggests an area

for national natural landmark consideration is not the owner of the

area, written permission of the owner(s) is required to enter onto the

PNNL to gather information, except when the land is publicly owned and

otherwise open to the public.

(3) After receiving the suggestions from a natural region study and

suggestions from other sources, the NPS determines which PNNL merit

further study for possible national natural landmark designation. This

determination is based on comparison with existing national natural

landmarks in the natural region, the national natural landmark criteria

(see Sec. 62.5) and other information.

(b) First Notification. (1) Before a potential national natural

landmark is evaluated by scientists as described in paragraph (c) of

this section, the NPS notifies the owner(s) in writing, except as

specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

(i) This notice advises the owner(s) that the PNNL is being

considered for study for possible national natural landmark designation

and provides information on the National Natural Landmarks Program,

including an explanation of the effects of national natural landmark

designation as described in Sec. 62.3.

(ii) The notice also provides the owner with available information

on the area and its tentatively identified significance, solicits the

owner's comments on the area, including any information on current or

anticipated land use or activities that may affect the area's natural

values, integrity, or other matters of concern, and informs the

[[Page 25719]]

owner of the source of the suggestion for consideration.

(iii) The notice also requests owner permission to enter the

property, unless the area is otherwise open to the public, so the NPS

or its representative can conduct an on-site evaluation of the PNNL as

described under paragraph (c) of this section, and advises the owner of

the procedures the NPS will follow in considering the PNNL for possible

designation.

(2) Before a potential national natural landmark having 50 or more

owners is evaluated by scientists as described in paragraph (c) of this

section, the NPS provides general notice to property owners. This

general notice is published in one or more local newspapers of general

circulation in the area in which the potential national natural

landmark is located. The notice provides the same information listed

under paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

(3) During an on-site evaluation as described in paragraph (c) of

this section, the NPS or any representative of the NPS will not enter

onto land without permission from the owner(s), except when the land is

publicly owned and otherwise open to the public. The NPS may complete

evaluations of PNNL by using other information, including information

that was previously gathered by other Federal or State agencies or

gained from other scientific studies. The NPS notifies owners if areas

are evaluated from existing information not requiring land entry.

(4) The described procedures for providing written notification to

owners and receiving responses from owners about the first notification

are the responsibility of the NPS and cannot be delegated to any

representative of the NPS.

(c) Evaluation. (1) The NPS uses the national natural landmark

criteria in Sec. 62.5 to evaluate the potential natural landmark.

Potential national natural landmarks are evaluated on a natural region

basis; i.e., similar areas that represent a particular type of feature

located in the same natural region are compared to identify examples

that are most illustrative and have the most intact, undisturbed

integrity.

(2) Evaluations are done by qualified scientists who are familiar

with the natural region and its types of biological and geological

features. Evaluators make a detailed description of the area, including

a proposed boundary map, and assess its regional standing using the

national natural landmark criteria (see Sec. 62.5) and any additional

information provided by the NPS. Evaluation reports must have been

completed or updated within the previous 2 years in order to be

considered by the NPS.

(3) Completed evaluation reports are reviewed by no fewer than

three peer reviewers, who are scientists familiar with the biological

or geological features of the area or natural region. These reviewers

provide the NPS with information on the scientific merit and strength

of supportive documentation in the evaluation report. On the basis of

evaluation report(s) and the findings of the peer reviewers, the NPS

makes a determination that:

(i) The PNNL does or does not appear to qualify for national

natural landmark designation; or

(ii) Additional information is required before a decision can be

made about the status of the PNNL.

(4) When a PNNL does not seem to qualify for national natural

landmark designation, the NPS notifies the owner(s) as prescribed in

paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.

(d) Second Notification. (1) When the Director determines that an

area meets the criteria for national significance, the NPS notifies the

owner(s) in writing, except as specified in paragraph (d)(2) of this

section.

(i) The notice references the rules in this part, advises the

owners of the procedures the NPS follows and of the effects of national

natural landmark designation as described in Sec. 62.3, provides the

owner(s) with a copy of the evaluation report, and provides the

owner(s) with the opportunity to comment. The list of owners must be

obtained from official land or tax records, whichever is most

appropriate, within 90 days before issuing the second notification.

(ii) If in any State the land or tax records are not helpful, the

NPS can seek alternative sources to identify the owners.

(iii) The NPS is responsible for notifying only owners whose names

appear on the list.

(2) If an area has more than 50 owners, the NPS provides a general

notice to the property owners. NPS will publish a general notice in one

or more local newspapers of general circulation in the region in which

the area is located. A copy of the evaluation report is made available

on request. In addition, the NPS may conduct a public information

meeting, if widespread local public interest warrants it or if

requested by the executive of the local governmental jurisdiction in

which the area is located.

(3) In addition, NPS notifies appropriate authorities,

organizations and individuals. The notices reference these rules and

advise the recipient of the proposed action, of the procedures the NPS

follows, and of the effects of national natural landmark designation as

described in Sec. 62.3. Notice of the proposed action is published also

in the Federal Register. NPS will notify:

(i) The executive of the local governmental jurisdiction in which

the area (PNNL) is located;

(ii) The governor of the State;

(iii) Other appropriate State officials;

(iv) Senators and members of Congress who represent the district in

which the area is located;

(v) Native American tribal governments and native villages and

corporations in the region; and

(vi) Other interested authorities, organizations and individuals as

deemed appropriate.

(4) All notified entities, including non-owners, have 60 days to

provide comments before NPS decides whether the area meets the criteria

for national significance. To assist in the evaluation of a area,

comments should, among other factors, discuss the area's features and

integrity. Information is also welcome on current or anticipated land

use or threats that could effect the area. Any party may request a

reasonable extension of the comment period when additional time is

required to study and comment on a landmark proposal. The Director may

grant these requests if he or she determines they are in the public

interest. All comments received are considered in the national natural

landmark designation process.

(5) Upon individual or general notification, any owner of private

property within a PNNL who wishes to object to national natural

landmark designation must submit a notarized statement to the Director

to certify that he or she is the sole or partial owner of record and he

or she objects to the designation. These statements will be submitted

during the 60-day comment period. Upon receipt of objections to the

designation of a PNNL consisting of multiple parcels of land, the NPS

must determine how much of it consists of owners who object to

designation. If an owner whose name is not on the ownership list

developed by the NPS certifies in a notarized statement that he or she

is the sole or partial owner of the area, NPS will take into account

his or her views about designation. In circumstances where a single

parcel of land within a PNNL has more than one fee simple owner, an

objection to designation of that property must be submitted by a

majority of the owners.

(6) All described procedures for the notification of owners and

receiving responses from owners in the second notification process are

the

[[Page 25720]]

responsibility of the NPS and cannot be delegated to any representative

of the NPS.

(e) Significance determination. (1) NPS will review all

documentation including, but not limited to, evaluation reports, peer

reviews, and received comments. If NPS determines that a PNNL does not

meet the criteria for national significance (see Sec. 62.5), the NPS

will notify the owner(s) in writing that their land is no longer under

consideration for national natural landmark designation. If PNNL are

owned by 50 or more parties, the NPS will publish a general notice as

described in paragraph (d)(2) of this section. In addition, the NPS

will notify in writing officials, individuals and organizations

notified under paragraph (d)(3) of this section.

(2) When the NPS determines that a PNNL meets the criteria for

national significance, the NPS determines whether any private property

owners submitted valid written objection to designation.

(f) Areas meeting criteria. When the Director of NPS determines by

all available information that a PNNL meets the criteria for national

significance, but some private property owners submitted written

objections to the proposed national natural landmark designation, the

NPS maintains all this information about the area and which shall be

available as part of the environmental analysis for any major federal

action for purposes of NEPA which impacts the NNL or these other lands.

Notice of this action is provided by the NPS to the owners as specified

in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section and to officials,

individuals and organizations notified under paragraph (d)(3) of this

section. If some but not all of the property owners within a PNNL

object to designation, the NPS will exclude the objecting properties

and proceed with the process only if enough area remains of non-

objecting properties to allow sufficient representation of the

significant natural features.

(g) National Park System Advisory Board. (1) The Director of the

NPS reviews the documentation of each area that meets the criteria for

national significance. When the Director determines that the

requirements of this part were met and that enough non-objecting valid

private property owners exist to encompass an adequate portion of the

nationally significant features, the Director submits the information

on the area (PNNL) to the National Park System Advisory Board. The

board reviews the information and recommends whether or not the land

with consenting owners qualifies for national natural landmark

designation.

(2) Notice of Advisory Board meetings to review national natural

landmark nominations and meeting agendas are provided at least 60 days

in advance of the meeting by publication in the Federal Register. The

NPS also mails copies of the notice directly to consenting owners of

areas that are to be considered at each meeting. Interested parties are

encouraged to submit written comments and recommendations that will be

presented to the board. Interested parties may also attend the board

meeting and upon request may address the board concerning an area's

national significance.

(h) Submission to the Secretary. The Director submits the

recommendation of the Advisory Board and materials that the Director

developed to the Secretary for consideration of the nominated area for

national natural landmark designation.

(i) Designation. The Secretary reviews the materials that the

Director submitted and any other documentation and makes a decision on

national natural landmark designation. Areas that the Secretary

designates as national natural landmarks are added to the National

Registry of Natural Landmarks.

(j) Third notification. When the Secretary designates an area as a

national natural landmark, the Secretary notifies in writing the

landmark owner(s) of areas with fewer than 50 owners. A general notice

of designated areas with 50 or more owners is published in one or more

local newspapers of general circulation in the area. The Secretary also

notifies the executive of the local governmental jurisdiction in which

the landmark is located, Native American tribal governments and native

villages and corporations in the area, the governor of the State, the

congressional members who represent the district and State in which the

landmark is located, and other interested authorities, organizations

and individuals as deemed appropriate. The NPS prepares the

notifications and is responsible for their distribution. Notices of new

designations are also published in the Federal Register.

(k) Presentation of plaque and certificate. (1) After the Secretary

designates an area as a national natural landmark, the NPS may provide

each owner who so requests with a certificate signed by the Secretary

of the Interior and the Director of the NPS at no cost to the owner(s).

This certificate recognizes the owner's interest in protecting and

managing the area in a manner that prevents the loss or deterioration

of the natural values on which landmark designation is based.

(2) If appropriate, NPS may also provide without charge a bronze

plaque for display in or near the national natural landmark. Upon

request, and to the extent NPS resources permit, the NPS may help

arrange and participate in a presentation ceremony. In accepting a

plaque or certificate, owners give up none of the rights and privileges

of ownership or use of the landmark and the Department of the Interior

does not acquire any interest in the designated property. After a

presentation, the plaque remains the property of NPS. If the landmark

designation is removed in accordance with the procedures in Sec. 62.8,

NPS may reclaim the plaque.

Sec. 62.5 Natural landmark criteria.

(a) Introduction. (1) National significance describes an area that

is one of the best examples of a biological or geological feature known

to be characteristic of a given natural region. Such features include

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems; geologic structures, exposures and

landforms that record active geologic processes or portions of earth

history; and fossil evidence of biological evolution. Because the

general character of natural diversity is regionally distinct and

correlated with broad patterns of physiography, many types of natural

features are entirely inside one of the 33 physiographic provinces of

the nation, as defined by Fenneman (Physiographic Divisions of the

United States, 1928) and modified as needed by the NPS.

(2) Because no uniform, nationally applicable classification scheme

for biological communities or geological features is accepted and used

by the majority of organizations involved in natural-area inventories,

a classification system for each inventory of a natural region was

developed to identify the types of regionally characteristic natural

features sought for representation on the National Registry of Natural

Landmarks. Most types represent the scale of distinct biological

communities or individual geological, paleontological, or physiographic

features, most of which can be mapped at the Earth's surface at

1:24,000 scale or are traceable in the subsurface. In some cases, the

NPS may further evaluate only a significant segment of a given natural

feature, where the segment is biologically or geologically

representative and where the entire feature is so large as to be

impracticable for natural landmark consideration (e.g., a mountain

range). Almost two-thirds of all national natural landmarks range from

about 10 to 5,000 acres, but some

[[Page 25721]]

are larger or smaller because of the wide variety of natural features

recognized by the National Natural Landmarks Program.

(b) Criteria. NPS uses the following criteria to evaluate the

relative quality of areas as examples of regionally characteristic

natural features:

(1) Primary criteria. Primary criteria for a specific type of

natural feature are the main basis for selection and are described in

the following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Criterion Description Example

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Illustrative character................ Area exhibits a combination of well- Alpine glacier with classic

developed components that are shape, unusual number of

recognized in the appropriate glaciological structures like

scientific literature as characteristic crevasses, and well-developed

of a particular type of natural bordering moraine sequences.

feature. Should be unusually

illustrative, rather than merely

statistically representative.

Present condition..................... Area has been less disturbed by humans Large beech maple forest, only

than other areas. a small portion of which has

been logged.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Secondary criteria. Secondary criteria are provided for

additional consideration, if two or more similar area cannot be ranked

using the primary criteria. Secondary criteria are described in the

following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Criterion Description Example

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Diversity............................. In addition to its primary natural Composite volcano that also

feature, area contains high quality illustrates geothermal

examples of other biological and/or phenomena.

geological features or processes.

Rarity................................ In addition to its primary natural Badlands, including strata

feature, area contains rare geological that contain rare fossils.

or paleontological feature or

biological community or provides high

quality habitat for one or more rare,

threatened, or endangered species.

Value for Science and Education....... Area contains known or potential Dunes landscape where process

information as a result of its of ecological succession was

association with significant scientific noted for first time.

discovery, concept, or exceptionally

extensive and long term record of on-

site research and therefore offers

unusual opportunities for public

interpretation of the natural history

of the United States.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 62.6 Natural landmark monitoring.

(a) Owner contact. The Field Offices of the NPS maintain periodic

contacts with the owners of designated national natural landmarks to

determine whether the landmarks retain the values that qualified them

for landmark designation and to update administrative records on the

areas.

(b) Section 8 Report. (1) The Secretary, through the NPS, prepares

an annual report to the Congress on all designated national natural

landmarks with known or anticipated damage or threats to one or more of

the resources that made them nationally significant. This report is

mandated by Section 8 of the National Park System General Authorities

Act of 1970, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 1a-5).

(2) A landmark is included in this report if it has lost or is in

imminent danger of losing all or part of its natural character to such

a degree that one or more of the values that made it nationally

significant are or will be irreversibly damaged or destroyed. In

assessing the status of a landmark, NPS considers the condition of the

landmark at the time of designation, including any changes that have

occurred and any threats that could impact it in the future.

(3) Section 8 also requires the Secretary to make recommendations

to the Congress on qualified areas for consideration as additions to

the National Park System. No legal mandate requires that the Congress

take further action about national natural landmarks listed as damaged

or threatened or about areas that are recommended for possible future

additions to the National Park System.

(4) NPS Regional Offices are responsible for monitoring the

condition of, and for completing status reports on, all designated

national natural landmarks in their regions. In some cases, the NPS may

arrange with outside individuals, agencies or organizations to monitor

the status of selected national natural landmarks. NPS or its

representative usually monitors national natural landmark condition and

status during a visit.

(c) Monitoring. (1) The NPS or its representative notifies the

owner(s) of a national natural landmark of his or her pending visit to

the area to determine its status and condition, and informs the

owner(s) of the purposes of monitoring and its relation to the

Secretary's annual report on threatened or damaged landmarks.

(2) While monitoring conditions of designated national natural

landmarks, neither NPS nor its representative will enter onto private

property or onto public lands that are not otherwise open to the public

without first obtaining permission from the owner(s) or

administrator(s). The NPS may monitor landmark condition without

entering onto lands where required permission has not been granted by

using other existing information, including telephone conversations

with the owner(s) or manager(s) of the area, written materials provided

by the owner or manager, or information previously developed by other

Federal or State agencies or other scientific studies. The NPS provides

owners with copies of monitoring reports on their property, which will

include the name and affiliation of the individual(s) who completed the

report.

(d) Section 8 report preparation. (1) After completion of landmark

monitoring, the NPS Regional Offices forward their findings and

recommendations to the NPS Washington Office. The NPS Washington Office

reviews the Regional Office findings and recommendations and prepares a

draft report listing only the national natural landmarks with

significant known or anticipated damage or threats to the integrity of

one or more of the resources that made the area nationally significant.

(2) Pertinent portions of this draft report, including any

executive summary, are provided to the owner(s) or administrator(s) of

national natural landmarks listed as is feasible, as well as to other

interested authorities,

[[Page 25722]]

organizations and individuals. All individuals have 30 days to provide

written comments to the NPS on the draft report. Comments may include

additional information on the condition of landmarks or on the nature

or imminence of reported damage or threats to these landmarks. Owners

are also asked to indicate whether they would like to receive a copy of

the final report, as described in paragraph (d)(3) of this section.

(3) The NPS reviews all comments on the draft report and prepares a

final report, which the Director transmits to the Secretary for

submission to the Congress. Upon release of the final report, the NPS

will provide a copy of the report to the owner(s) of landmarks who are

listed in the report and have requested copies and to other interested

authorities, organizations and individuals.

(e) Mining in the Parks Act. If the NPS determines that an entire

or partial national natural landmark may be irreparably lost or

destroyed by surface mining activity, including exploration for or

removal or production of minerals or materials, NPS notifies the person

that is conducting the activity and prepares a report that identifies

the basis for the finding that the activity may cause irreparable loss

or destruction. The NPS also notifies the owner(s) of the national

natural landmark in writing of its finding. The NPS submits to the

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation the report and a request for

advice about alternative measures that may be taken by the United

States to mitigate or abate the activity. The authority for this action

is contained in Section 9 of the Mining in the Parks Act of 1976 (16

U.S.C. 1908).

(f) National Environmental Policy Act. Federal agencies should

consider the existence and location of designated national natural

landmarks, and of areas found to meet the criteria for national

significance, in assessing the effects of their activities on the

environment under section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental

Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321). The NPS is responsible for providing

requested information about the National Natural Landmarks Program for

these assessments.

Sec. 62.7 Natural landmark modifications.

(a) Determination of need for modifications. After designation, the

modification of the boundaries of a natural landmark, and/or revision

of information about it, may be appropriate. For example, because of

new information or changes in the condition of an NNL, the boundary may

have to be reduced or expanded or information about the NNL may have to

be revised. Additional study may reveal that the area has nationally

significant values that had not been previously documented. The NPS

determines that landmark modifications are necessary through

administration of the program. In addition, the NPS may receive

suggestions for landmark modifications from other Federal agencies,

State natural area programs, and other public and private organizations

or individuals. The NPS determines the validity of these suggestions by

applying the natural landmark criteria or by conducting additional

study.

(b) Boundary expansion. (1) Three justifications exist for

enlarging the boundary of a national natural landmark: better

documentation of the extent of nationally significant features,

professional error in the original designation, or additional

landowners with nationally significant features on their property

desiring the designation.

(2) If the NPS determines that an expansion of the boundary of the

national natural landmark is appropriate, it will use the designation

process outlined in Sec. 62.4(b) through (j). If a boundary is

expanded, only the owners in the newly considered but as yet not

designated portion of the area are notified and asked if they object to

designation.

(c) Boundary reduction. Two justifications exist for reducing the

boundary of a national natural landmark: Loss of integrity of the

natural features or professional error in the original designation. If

the NPS determines that a reduction in the national natural landmark

boundary is indicated, the designation removal process outlined in

Sec. 62.8 is used.

(d) Change in description of values. If the NPS determines that a

change in the description of the national natural landmark's nationally

significant values is warranted, the NPS prepares the recommended

changes and the Director submits the changes and all supportive

documentation to the National Park System Advisory Board. The Advisory

Board reviews the information submitted by the Director and makes

recommendations to the Secretary. The Secretary reviews the supportive

documentation and the recommendations of the board, and may approve

changes in the description of a landmark's nationally significant

values.

(e) Minor technical corrections. Minor technical corrections to a

national natural landmark boundary and other administrative changes in

landmark documentation not covered under paragraphs (a) through (d) of

this section may be approved by the Director without a review by the

Advisory Board or the approval by the Secretary. Minor technical

boundary corrections are defined as those that involve a change in less

than five percent of the total area of the national natural landmark.

The NPS notifies owners of proposed minor technical boundary

corrections or other administrative changes in documentation, as

described in this paragraph (e). Based upon owner response to this

notification, the NPS determines whether the proposed change is a minor

technical correction to landmark documentation that can be made

administratively or whether the procedures outlined in Sec. 62.4(d)

through (j) must be followed.

Sec. 62.8 Natural landmark designation removal.

(a) Criteria for removal. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (f)

of this section, national natural landmark designation is removed from

an area:

(i) When it can be shown that an error in professional judgment was

made such that the site did not meet the criteria for national

significance at the time of designation;

(ii) When the values which originally qualified it for designation

have been lost or destroyed; or

(iii) When applicable designation procedures were not followed

because of prejudicial failure.

(2) Any affected owner of a designated national natural landmark

may initiate the removal by submitting to the Director a request for

removal of designation, stating the grounds for this removal and

specifying the error in professional judgment, loss of natural values

or prejudicial procedural error. A prejudicial procedural error is one

that reasonably may be considered to have affected the outcome of the

designation process.

(3) Within 60 days of receiving a removal request, the NPS notifies

the party submitting the request of whether the NPS considers the

documentation sufficient to consider removal of the natural landmark

designation.

(b) Review of removal information. The NPS reviews the information

outlining the grounds for removal. When necessary, an on-site

evaluation of the area may be made, as outlined in Sec. 62.4(c). Based

on all available information, the NPS determines whether the area no

longer merits designation as a national natural landmark.

(c) Notifications. When NPS has determined that area no longer

merits designation as a national natural landmark, the NPS notifies the

owner(s) and other interested parties as specified

[[Page 25723]]

in Sec. 62.4(d)(1)-(3). Notice of the proposed removal is also

published in the Federal Register. The notified individuals may comment

within 60 days of the date of the notice before a recommendation for

removal is submitted to the Secretary. All comments received will be

considered in the review and in the decision to remove the national

natural landmark designation.

(d) Removal from the registry. (1) The Director reviews the

information about a recommended removal from the Registry and

determines whether the procedural requirements in this section have

been met. If the Director confirms the findings, he or she submits a

recommendation for removal to the National Park System Advisory Board.

The Advisory Board reviews the submitted information and recommends the

removal from or retention of the area in the registry.

(2) The recommendations of the Advisory Board and the Director are

submitted by the Director to the Secretary for his or her

consideration. If the Secretary concurs, he or she directs the removal

of the landmark from the National Registry of Natural Landmarks. Any

area from which designation is withdrawn solely because of procedural

error as described in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section continues

to meet the criteria for national significance.

(e) Notification of removal from the registry. When the Secretary

removes a landmark from the National Registry of Natural Landmarks, the

Secretary will notify the national natural landmark owner(s), the

executive of the local government jurisdiction in which the area is

located, Native American tribal governments and native villages and

corporations in the area, the governor of the State, Congressional

members who represent the Congressional District and State in which the

area is located, and other interested authorities, organizations, and

individuals, as outlined in Sec. 62.4(d)(1), (2) and (3). The NPS is

responsible for preparing and distributing the written notices. The NPS

periodically publishes notice(s) of removal in the Federal Register.

The NPS may reclaim the natural landmark plaque when a landmark is

removed from the National Registry of Natural Landmarks.

(f) Previously designated landmarks. (1) NPS will notify owners of

national natural landmarks designated before the effective date of

these regulations to give them an opportunity within 90 days of the

notice to request the removal of a national natural landmark

designation from their property by writing to the Director. If owners

do not respond within 90 days of the notification, the national natural

landmark designations of their properties will be retained.

(2) When only some owners of a national natural landmark in

multiple ownership request the removal of a national natural landmark

designation from their portions, the NPS determines whether, after

removal of these portions, a sufficient acreage of the national natural

landmark remains to demonstrate the original nationally significant

features without undue compromise. If so, the boundaries of the

national natural landmark are adjusted to remove the properties of

owners who object to the designation. If not, the entire national

natural landmark designation is removed and the area is removed from

the National Registry of Natural Landmarks.

(3) Any removals of existing national natural landmark designations

and related recommended boundary adjustments, must be presented by the

Director to the National Park System Advisory Board for review before

being presented to the Secretary who formally removes a national

natural landmark from the national registry or approves changes in the

national natural landmark boundary. Areas from which the designation

has been removed may be reconsidered for designation under these

regulations if ownership or other circumstances change.

Sec. 62.9 General provisions.

(a) Agreements. The NPS may enter into contracts, memoranda of

agreement, cooperative agreements, or other types of agreements with

other Federal agencies, States, counties, local communities, private

organizations, owners, Native American tribal governments, or other

interested individuals or groups to assist in administering the

National Natural Landmarks Program. The agreements may include but are

not limited to provisions about identification, evaluation, monitoring

or protecting national natural landmarks.

(b) Information dissemination. The NPS may conduct educational and

scientific activities to disseminate information on national natural

landmarks, the National Natural Landmarks Program, and the benefits

derived from systematic surveys of significant natural features to the

general public and to interested local, State and Federal agencies and

private groups. Dissemination of information on ecologically or

geologically fragile or sensitive areas may be restricted when release

of the information may endanger or harm the sensitive resources.

(c) Procedural requirements. Any individual, agency, or

organization acting as a representative of the NPS in the

identification, evaluation, monitoring or protection of national

natural landmarks is required to follow this part.

(d) Additional program information. Further guidance on the

operation of the National Natural Landmarks Program, as based on this

part, may be found in other program documents that are available from

the NPS.

(e) Administrative recourse. Any person has the right to insist

that NPS take into account all the provisions in this part for national

natural landmark designation or removal.

Note: This document was received at the Office of the Federal

Register on April 14, 1999.

Dated: June 10, 1998.

William Leary,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 99-9762 Filed 5-11-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-70-P