[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 12, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25708-25723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-9762]



[[Page 25707]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III

_______________________________________________________________________





Department of the Interior





_______________________________________________________________________



National Park Service



_______________________________________________________________________



36 CFR Part 62



National Natural Landmarks Program; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 1999 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 25708]]



DERARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

36 CFR Part 62

RIN 1024-AB96


National Natural Landmarks Program

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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