Draft Merced Wild and Scenic River Revised Comprehensive Management Plan and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Yosemite National Park, Tuolumne, Mariposa, and Madera Counties, CA; Notice of Availability, 382-384 [05-47]

Download as PDF 382 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2005 / Notices because of disagreement over possible environmental effects. In addition to consulting NPS resource specialists, within and outside the Seashore, park managers consulted federal, state and local agencies about management issues of concern. The beginning of public scoping was announced on May 4, 2002, at a public meeting of the Point Reyes National Seashore Citizens Advisory Commission with a presentation on the NNDMP planning process. In this meeting, input on non-native deer management issues of concern and range of alternatives was solicited from the public. The public meeting featured a short presentation by the Seashore wildlife biologist on the environmental planning process, background on non-native deer, and issues of importance to park management. Background informational handouts were provided. Members of the Citizen’s Advisory Committee for Point Reyes National Seashore and Golden Gates National Recreation Area were given the opportunity to ask questions of park staff. Five individuals spoke at the public meeting. A sign-up sheet at the public meeting provided an opportunity for members of the public to be included on a mailing list for upcoming information on the management plan in development. Public comments were accepted in letter or email form from May 4, 2002 until July 5, 2002. All those who sent written comments during the scoping period and included a return mailing address were also put on the mailing list. An acknowledgment of the Seashore’s receipt of written comments, in postcard form, was also sent to those who wrote letters. A similar e-mail message was sent back to those who emailed comments. A total of 32 written comments were received by the close of the public comment period. The major themes communicated by the public during the May 4, 2002 meeting and the subsequent scoping period encompassed a range, from a desire to retain non-native deer in the park or to use non-lethal deer control techniques, to concern about impacts to natural resources from non-native deer and a desire to eliminate all non-native deer from the Seashore. Commenting on the Draft EIS: The purpose of the management plan is to define management prescriptions for non-native deer. A public workshop on the proposed NNDMP will be held during late winter 2005 at the Point Reyes National Seashore Red Barn meeting (confirmed date and other workshop details will be advertised by direct mailing to 210 individuals and organizations) and a notice placed in the VerDate jul<14>2003 18:02 Jan 03, 2005 Jkt 205001 local newspapers. All interested individuals, organizations, and agencies will be encouraged to provide comments, suggestions, and relevant information (earlier scoping comments need not be resubmitted); written comments must be postmarked not later than 60 days following publication in the Federal Register by EPA of their notice of filing of the availability of the Draft EIS (as soon as this date can be confirmed it will be announced on the park’s website, and included in the workshop mailing). Questions at this time regarding the NNDMP planning process or work shop should be addressed to the Superintendent either by mail (see address below) or by telephone at (415) 663–8522. Please note that names and addresses of people who comment become part of the public record. If individuals commenting request that their name and/or address be withheld from public disclosure, it will be honored to the extent allowable by law. Such requests must be stated prominently in the beginning of the comments. There also may be circumstances wherein the NPS withholds from the record a respondent’s identity, as allowable by law. As always: the NPS will make available to public inspection all submissions from organizations or businesses and from persons identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations and businesses; and, anonymous comments may not be considered. ADDRESSES: Copies of the Draft EIS may be obtained from the Superintendent, Point Reyes National Seashore, Point Reyes, CA 94956, Attn: NNDMP, or by e-mail request to: Ann_Nelson@nps.gov (in the subject line, type: NNDMP). The document will be sent directly to those who have requested it, and also posted on the Internet at the park’s Web page (https://www.nps.gov/pore/pphtml/ documents.html.); and both the printed document and digital version on compact disk will be available at the park headquarters and local libraries. Decision: Following careful analysis of public and agency comment on the Draft EIS, it is anticipated at this time that the final EIS would be available in fall of 2005. As a delegated EIS, the official responsible for the final decision is the Regional Director, Pacific West Region. A Record of Decision would not be signed sooner than 30 days following release of the Final EIS; notice of the decision will be posted in the Federal Register and announced in local and regional newspapers. Following approval of the Non-Native Deer Management Plan, the official PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 responsible for implementation will be the Superintendent, Point Reyes National Seashore. Dated: December 17, 2004. Jonathan B. Jarvis, Regional Director, Pacific West Region. [FR Doc. 05–48 Filed 1–3–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312–FW–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service Draft Merced Wild and Scenic River Revised Comprehensive Management Plan and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Yosemite National Park, Tuolumne, Mariposa, and Madera Counties, CA; Notice of Availability Summary—Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91–190, as amended), the Council of Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR Part 1500), and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1271), the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, has prepared the Draft Merced Wild and Scenic River Revised Comprehensive Management Plan and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Draft Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS). It is intended to amend and supplement the Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (Merced River Plan/FEIS) released in June 2000. The Draft Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS identifies and evaluates four alternatives for guiding management of the Merced Wild and Scenic River in Yosemite National Park. When approved, the plan will serve as a template for all future decisions relating to recreation and land use within Yosemite’s 81-mile Merced River corridor. The primary goals of the plan are to ensure the free-flowing condition of the river, along with providing longterm protection and enhancement of what the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act calls the river’s ‘‘Outstandingly Remarkable Values’’—the unique qualities that make the river worthy of special protection. Purpose and Need for Federal Action—The Merced River Plan is the official document for guiding future management of the main stem and South Fork of the Merced Wild and Scenic River within the jurisdiction of Yosemite National Park. In August 2000, the Merced River Plan/FEIS was approved and signed in a Record of Decision (subsequently revised in November 2000). Shortly after the E:\FR\FM\04JAN1.SGM 04JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2005 / Notices Record of Decision was signed, the plan became the subject of a lengthy litigation process. In April 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit directed the National Park Service (NPS) to prepare a ‘‘new or revised’’ comprehensive management plan that addresses two deficiencies identified in the Court’s October 27, 2003 opinion (Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 803 9th Cir. 2003). The Court ruled that: (1) The revised plan must implement a user capacity program that presents specific measurable limits on use, and (2) the revised plan must reassess the river corridor boundary in the El Portal Administrative Site based on the location of Outstandingly Remarkable Values. The purpose of the programmatic guidance identified herein is to revise and supplement the Merced River Plan/FEIS and the park’s 1980 General Management Plan. This supplemental environmental impact statement represents NPS compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as parallel compliance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1271) and National Historic Preservation Act. Proposed Plan and Alternatives—As the proposed Revised Merced River Plan, Alternative 2 (agency preferred alternative) would include all of the elements of the No Action Alternative, with the addition of implementing the Visitor Experience Resource Protection (VERP) user capacity component, along with interim limits on some park facilities; the El Portal segment boundary would be redrawn based on the location of the Outstandingly Remarkable Values identified within a quarter-mile of the river. In addition to this proposed plan, the Draft Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS identifies and analyzes three other alternatives: Alternative 1—No Action; Alternative 3—Quotas by Segment with VERP; and Alternative 4—Quotas by Management Zone with VERP. Alternative 2 has also been deemed to be the ‘‘environmentally preferred’’ alternative. The No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) represents a baseline on which to compare the three action alternatives. Under this alternative, the Merced River Plan—as signed in the 2000 Record of Decision (and subsequent revision)—would continue to guide management in the river corridor. Application of its management elements (boundaries, classifications, Outstandingly Remarkable Values, management zoning, River Protection Overlay, Section 7 determination process) would continue as presented in the plan. However, implementation of VerDate jul<14>2003 18:02 Jan 03, 2005 Jkt 205001 the Visitor Experience Resource Protection (VERP) framework would not be in place and the park would continue managing user capacity under existing programs and policies outlined in the February 2004 User Capacity Program for the Merced Wild and Scenic River Corridor. This program includes continuation of the current wilderness management program and existing Trailhead Quota System. This alternative would implement the narrow boundary for the El Portal segment as described in the selected alternative of the Merced River Plan/FEIS (100-year floodplain or River Protection Overlay [whichever is greater] along with adjacent wetlands). Alternative 3 would also include all of the elements from the No Action alternative, in addition to a VERP user capacity component (as described in Alternative 2) along with a maximum daily quota for each river segment and an annual visitation cap; the El Portal segment would have the maximum quarter-mile boundary. Alternative 4 would contain the elements of No Action in addition to a VERP user capacity component (as described in Alternative 2) along with quotas for each river management zone and an annual visitation cap; the El Portal segment boundary would be drawn according to the location of Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Scoping History—On July 27, 2004, a Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement was published in the Federal Register initiating a 30-day scoping period—in response to public comment, this scoping period was extended to September 10, 2004. During scoping, a series of public meetings were held. A letter from the Superintendent was sent to over 8,000 interested members of the public on the park’s Planning Mailing list, encouraging them to submit ideas, issues, and concerns relating to the scope of this planning effort. In addition, the scoping period and associated public meetings were publicized via regional media, on the park’s Web site, through e-mailed notices on the park’s electronic newsletter, and on various state-wide online bulletin boards. As a result of outreach, over 100 letters, faxes, and emails were received and considered during the development of this Draft Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS. All written scoping comments, as well as oral comments at public meetings, can be viewed on the park’s Web site (https://www.nps.gov/yose/planning). A scoping report is also available. Comments—Upon its release, the Draft Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 383 will be mailed directly to those who requested the document in response to a December 2004 direct mail and emailed solicitation. While the public will be encouraged to view the document on the park’s Web site (https://www.nps.gov/yose/planning), it will be made available in a printed version, as well as on CD ROM. Copies will be available at park headquarters and the main Visitor Center in Yosemite Valley, the Administrative Complex in El Portal, and at local and regional libraries throughout California. Written comments must be submitted in writing and postmarked no later than 60 days after the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of filing of the Draft Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS in the Federal Register (anticipated to occur in mid-January, 2005; as soon as this date is confirmed it will be announced on the park’s Web site). All comments should be addressed to the Superintendent, ATTN: Draft Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS, P.O. Box 577, Yosemite National Park, CA 95389. Also, comments can be e-mailed to yose_planning@nps.gov or faxed to (209) 379–1294. All comments received will be available for public review in the Yosemite Research Library and also may be available on the park’s Web site. To request a printed copy or CD ROM, refer to the information above or phone (209) 379–1365. Individuals submitting comments may request that their name and/or address be withheld from public disclosure, and such requests will be honored to the extent allowable by law. Requests must be stated prominently in the beginning of comments. There also may be circumstances wherein the NPS will withhold a respondent’s identity as allowable by law. As always, the National Park Service will make available to public inspection all submissions from organizations or businesses and from persons identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations and businesses. Anonymous comments will not be considered. Public Meetings—In order to facilitate public review and comment on the Draft Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS, the NPS intends to host public meetings in the following California towns and cities: San Francisco, Sacramento, Groveland, Merced, Mammoth, Los Angeles, Fresno, Oakhurst, Mariposa, El Portal, and Yosemite Valley. Meeting dates will be dependent on the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, and will occur after the first 15 days of the comment period and no later than 15 days prior to the comment period closing. A schedule of dates, E:\FR\FM\04JAN1.SGM 04JAN1 384 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2005 / Notices locations, and times will be announced via a mailing to the park’s Planning Mailing List, a news release, through the park’s electronic newsletter, and postings on the park’s Web site (https://www.nps.gov/yose/planning) and other statewide online bulletin boards. Participants are encouraged to review the document prior to attending a meeting. Yosemite National Park management and planning team members will attend all sessions to present the Draft Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS, to receive oral and written comments, and to answer questions. All meeting locations will be accessible for disabled persons and a sign language interpreter may be available upon request with prior notice (contact the park as noted above under ‘‘Comments’’). Decision Process—Depending on the degree of public interest and response from other agencies and organizations, at this time it is anticipated that the Final Merced Wild and Scenic River Revised Comprehensive Management Plan and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final Merced River Plan/SEIS) will be completed during June 2005; availability of the document will be duly noted in the Federal Register. Subsequently, notice of an approved Record of Decision would be published in the Federal Register not sooner than 30 days after the final document is distributed. This is expected to occur in mid-August 2005. As a delegated EIS, the official responsible for the decision is the Regional Director, Pacific West Region, National Park Service; the official responsible for implementation is the Superintendent, Yosemite National Park. Dated: December 14, 2004. Jonathan B. Jarvis, Regional Director, Pacific West Region. [FR Doc. 05–47 Filed 1–3–05; 8:45 am] Dated: December 15, 2004. Michael B. Murray, Acting Superintendent. [FR Doc. 05–45 Filed 1–3–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312–FY–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BILLING CODE 4312–52–M National Park Service Cape Cod National Seashore, South Wellfleet, MA; Cape Code National Seashore Advisory Commission; Two Hundred Fifty-First Notice of Meeting Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770, 5 U.S.C. App 1, Section 10), that a meeting of the Cape Code National Seashore Advisory Commission will be held on February 14, 2005. VerDate jul<14>2003 18:02 Jan 03, 2005 The Commission was reestablished pursuant to Pub. L. 87–126 as amended by Pub. L. 105–280. The purpose of the Commission is to consult with the Secretary of the Interior, or his designee, with respect to matters relating to the development of Cape Cod National Seashore, and with respect to carrying out the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the Act establishing the Seashore. The Commission members will meet at 1 p.m. at Headquarters, Marconi Station, Wellfleet, Massachusetts for the regular business meeting to discuss the following: 1. Adoption of Agenda 2. Approval of Minutes of Previous Meeting (December 6, 2004) 3. Reports of Officers 4. Reports of Subcommittees 5. Superintendent’s Report Update on Salt Pond Visitor Center Project Update on Highlands Center Project Update on Hunting EIS Update on Dune Shack Issue Update on Proposed Herring River Restoration Project News from Washington 6. Old Business 7. New Business Pleasant Bay Discussion 8. Date and agenda for next meeting 9. Public comment and 10. Adjournment The meeting is open to the public. It is expected that 15 persons will be able to attend the meeting in addition to Commission members. Interested persons may make oral/ written presentations to the Commission during the business meeting or file written statement. Such requests should be made to the park superintendent at least seven days prior to the meeting. Further information concerning the meeting may be obtained from the Superintendent, Cape Cod National Seashore, 99 Marconi Site Road, Wellfleet, MA 02667. Jkt 205001 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before December 11, 2004. Pursuant to section PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60 written comments concerning the significance of these properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St., NW., 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service,1201 Eye St., NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202–371–6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by January 19, 2005. Carol D. Shull, Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places. ALABAMA Baldwin County Foley Downtown Historic District, Parts of Alston, N & S McZenzie, AL 98, E & W Laurel, Myrtle, Rose, and W. Orange, Foley, 04001496 Butler County Greenville Downtown Historic District (Boundary Increase), (Greenville MRA), Roughly Adams, Bolling, Caldwell, Church, Commerce, Conecuh, Few and Walnut Sts., Greenville, 04001497 ARKANSAS Ashley County Greenview Cafe, 3rd Ave. and Arkansas St., Crossett, 04001507 Benton County Illinois River Bridge, (Historic Bridges of Arkansas MPS), Cty Rd. 196 (Kincheloe Rd.) approx. 0.25 S of old AR 68, Pedro, 04001503 Railroad Cottage, 208 N. Rust, Gentry, 04001509 Springfield to Fayetteville Road—Cross Hollow Segment, (Cherokee Trail of Tears MPS), Benton Cty Rd. 83 through Cross Hollow, Lowell, 04001511 Springfield to Fayetteville Road—Brightwater Segment, (Cherokee Trail of Tears MPS), N Old Wire Rd./Benton Cty Rd. 67, S of U.S. 62, Brightwater, 04001513 Boone County Evans—Kirby House, 611 S. Pine St., Harrison, 04001505 Clark County Peake High School, 1600 Caddo St., Arkadelphia, 04001499 Clay County County Home Cemetery, 3010 Heritage Park Rd., Piggott, 04001495 Craighead County Mercantile Bank Building, 249 S. Main St., Jonesboro, 04001506 Desha County Lewis, Jay, House, 12 Fairview Dr., McGehee, 04001501 E:\FR\FM\04JAN1.SGM 04JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 382-384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-47]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Draft Merced Wild and Scenic River Revised Comprehensive 
Management Plan and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, 
Yosemite National Park, Tuolumne, Mariposa, and Madera Counties, CA; 
Notice of Availability

    Summary--Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, as amended), the 
Council of Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR Part 1500), and 
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1271), the 
National Park Service, Department of the Interior, has prepared the 
Draft Merced Wild and Scenic River Revised Comprehensive Management 
Plan and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Draft Revised 
Merced River Plan/SEIS). It is intended to amend and supplement the 
Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan and Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (Merced River Plan/FEIS) released in 
June 2000. The Draft Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS identifies and 
evaluates four alternatives for guiding management of the Merced Wild 
and Scenic River in Yosemite National Park. When approved, the plan 
will serve as a template for all future decisions relating to 
recreation and land use within Yosemite's 81-mile Merced River 
corridor. The primary goals of the plan are to ensure the free-flowing 
condition of the river, along with providing long-term protection and 
enhancement of what the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act calls the river's 
``Outstandingly Remarkable Values''--the unique qualities that make the 
river worthy of special protection.
    Purpose and Need for Federal Action--The Merced River Plan is the 
official document for guiding future management of the main stem and 
South Fork of the Merced Wild and Scenic River within the jurisdiction 
of Yosemite National Park. In August 2000, the Merced River Plan/FEIS 
was approved and signed in a Record of Decision (subsequently revised 
in November 2000). Shortly after the

[[Page 383]]

Record of Decision was signed, the plan became the subject of a lengthy 
litigation process. In April 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Ninth Circuit directed the National Park Service (NPS) to prepare a 
``new or revised'' comprehensive management plan that addresses two 
deficiencies identified in the Court's October 27, 2003 opinion 
(Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 803 9th Cir. 
2003). The Court ruled that: (1) The revised plan must implement a user 
capacity program that presents specific measurable limits on use, and 
(2) the revised plan must reassess the river corridor boundary in the 
El Portal Administrative Site based on the location of Outstandingly 
Remarkable Values. The purpose of the programmatic guidance identified 
herein is to revise and supplement the Merced River Plan/FEIS and the 
park's 1980 General Management Plan. This supplemental environmental 
impact statement represents NPS compliance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act, as well as parallel compliance with the Wild 
and Scenic Rivers Act (as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1271) and National 
Historic Preservation Act.
    Proposed Plan and Alternatives--As the proposed Revised Merced 
River Plan, Alternative 2 (agency preferred alternative) would include 
all of the elements of the No Action Alternative, with the addition of 
implementing the Visitor Experience Resource Protection (VERP) user 
capacity component, along with interim limits on some park facilities; 
the El Portal segment boundary would be redrawn based on the location 
of the Outstandingly Remarkable Values identified within a quarter-mile 
of the river. In addition to this proposed plan, the Draft Revised 
Merced River Plan/SEIS identifies and analyzes three other 
alternatives: Alternative 1--No Action; Alternative 3--Quotas by 
Segment with VERP; and Alternative 4--Quotas by Management Zone with 
VERP. Alternative 2 has also been deemed to be the ``environmentally 
preferred'' alternative.
    The No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) represents a baseline on 
which to compare the three action alternatives. Under this alternative, 
the Merced River Plan--as signed in the 2000 Record of Decision (and 
subsequent revision)--would continue to guide management in the river 
corridor. Application of its management elements (boundaries, 
classifications, Outstandingly Remarkable Values, management zoning, 
River Protection Overlay, Section 7 determination process) would 
continue as presented in the plan. However, implementation of the 
Visitor Experience Resource Protection (VERP) framework would not be in 
place and the park would continue managing user capacity under existing 
programs and policies outlined in the February 2004 User Capacity 
Program for the Merced Wild and Scenic River Corridor. This program 
includes continuation of the current wilderness management program and 
existing Trailhead Quota System. This alternative would implement the 
narrow boundary for the El Portal segment as described in the selected 
alternative of the Merced River Plan/FEIS (100-year floodplain or River 
Protection Overlay [whichever is greater] along with adjacent 
wetlands).
    Alternative 3 would also include all of the elements from the No 
Action alternative, in addition to a VERP user capacity component (as 
described in Alternative 2) along with a maximum daily quota for each 
river segment and an annual visitation cap; the El Portal segment would 
have the maximum quarter-mile boundary.
    Alternative 4 would contain the elements of No Action in addition 
to a VERP user capacity component (as described in Alternative 2) along 
with quotas for each river management zone and an annual visitation 
cap; the El Portal segment boundary would be drawn according to the 
location of Outstandingly Remarkable Values.
    Scoping History--On July 27, 2004, a Notice of Intent to prepare an 
environmental impact statement was published in the Federal Register 
initiating a 30-day scoping period--in response to public comment, this 
scoping period was extended to September 10, 2004. During scoping, a 
series of public meetings were held. A letter from the Superintendent 
was sent to over 8,000 interested members of the public on the park's 
Planning Mailing list, encouraging them to submit ideas, issues, and 
concerns relating to the scope of this planning effort. In addition, 
the scoping period and associated public meetings were publicized via 
regional media, on the park's Web site, through e-mailed notices on the 
park's electronic newsletter, and on various state-wide online bulletin 
boards. As a result of outreach, over 100 letters, faxes, and emails 
were received and considered during the development of this Draft 
Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS. All written scoping comments, as well 
as oral comments at public meetings, can be viewed on the park's Web 
site (https://www.nps.gov/yose/planning). A scoping report is also 
available.
    Comments--Upon its release, the Draft Revised Merced River Plan/
SEIS will be mailed directly to those who requested the document in 
response to a December 2004 direct mail and e-mailed solicitation. 
While the public will be encouraged to view the document on the park's 
Web site (https://www.nps.gov/yose/planning), it will be made available 
in a printed version, as well as on CD ROM. Copies will be available at 
park headquarters and the main Visitor Center in Yosemite Valley, the 
Administrative Complex in El Portal, and at local and regional 
libraries throughout California.
    Written comments must be submitted in writing and postmarked no 
later than 60 days after the Environmental Protection Agency publishes 
the notice of filing of the Draft Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS in the 
Federal Register (anticipated to occur in mid-January, 2005; as soon as 
this date is confirmed it will be announced on the park's Web site). 
All comments should be addressed to the Superintendent, ATTN: Draft 
Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS, P.O. Box 577, Yosemite National Park, 
CA 95389. Also, comments can be e-mailed to yose_planning@nps.gov or 
faxed to (209) 379-1294. All comments received will be available for 
public review in the Yosemite Research Library and also may be 
available on the park's Web site. To request a printed copy or CD ROM, 
refer to the information above or phone (209) 379-1365.
    Individuals submitting comments may request that their name and/or 
address be withheld from public disclosure, and such requests will be 
honored to the extent allowable by law. Requests must be stated 
prominently in the beginning of comments. There also may be 
circumstances wherein the NPS will withhold a respondent's identity as 
allowable by law. As always, the National Park Service will make 
available to public inspection all submissions from organizations or 
businesses and from persons identifying themselves as representatives 
or officials of organizations and businesses. Anonymous comments will 
not be considered.
    Public Meetings--In order to facilitate public review and comment 
on the Draft Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS, the NPS intends to host 
public meetings in the following California towns and cities: San 
Francisco, Sacramento, Groveland, Merced, Mammoth, Los Angeles, Fresno, 
Oakhurst, Mariposa, El Portal, and Yosemite Valley. Meeting dates will 
be dependent on the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, 
and will occur after the first 15 days of the comment period and no 
later than 15 days prior to the comment period closing. A schedule of 
dates,

[[Page 384]]

locations, and times will be announced via a mailing to the park's 
Planning Mailing List, a news release, through the park's electronic 
newsletter, and postings on the park's Web site (https://www.nps.gov/
yose/planning) and other statewide online bulletin boards.
    Participants are encouraged to review the document prior to 
attending a meeting. Yosemite National Park management and planning 
team members will attend all sessions to present the Draft Revised 
Merced River Plan/SEIS, to receive oral and written comments, and to 
answer questions. All meeting locations will be accessible for disabled 
persons and a sign language interpreter may be available upon request 
with prior notice (contact the park as noted above under ``Comments'').
    Decision Process--Depending on the degree of public interest and 
response from other agencies and organizations, at this time it is 
anticipated that the Final Merced Wild and Scenic River Revised 
Comprehensive Management Plan and Supplemental Environmental Impact 
Statement (Final Merced River Plan/SEIS) will be completed during June 
2005; availability of the document will be duly noted in the Federal 
Register. Subsequently, notice of an approved Record of Decision would 
be published in the Federal Register not sooner than 30 days after the 
final document is distributed. This is expected to occur in mid-August 
2005. As a delegated EIS, the official responsible for the decision is 
the Regional Director, Pacific West Region, National Park Service; the 
official responsible for implementation is the Superintendent, Yosemite 
National Park.

    Dated: December 14, 2004.
Jonathan B. Jarvis,
Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
[FR Doc. 05-47 Filed 1-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-FY-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.