National Park Service, 1470-1473 [05-351]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
• National Park Service

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 5 (Friday, January 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1470-1473]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-351]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR


National Park Service

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability of the Draft Site Progress Report to the 
World Heritage Committee, Yellowstone National Park.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Decision adopted by the 27th Session of the 
World Heritage Committee (Document: WHC-03/27.COM/7A.12) accepted by 
the United States Government, the National Park Service (NPS) announces 
the publication for comment of a Draft Site Progress Report to the 
World Heritage Committee for Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, Idaho 
and Montana.

DATES: There will be a 30-day public review period for comments on this 
document. Comments must be received on or before February 7, 2005.

ADDRESSES: The Draft Site Report is included in the supplementary 
information section of this notice. Copies are also available by 
writing to Suzanne Lewis, Superintendent, Yellowstone National Park, 
Post Office Box 168, Yellowstone National Park, WY 82190-0168; by 
telephoning (307) 344-2002; by sending an e-mail message to yell_
world_heritage@nps.gov; or by picking up a copy in person at the 
park's headquarters in Mammoth Hot Springs, Wyoming 82190. The document 
is also posted on the park's Web site at https://www.nps.gov/yell/
publications/worldheritage/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Suzanne Lewis, Superintendent, 
Yellowstone National Park, Post Office Box 168, Yellowstone National 
Park, WY 82190-0168, or by calling (307) 344-2002.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 1471]]

A. The World Heritage Committee Decision

    In 1995, the World Heritage Committee, with the agreement of the 
United States, placed Yellowstone National Park, a designated World 
Heritage site, on its List of World Heritage in Danger in response to 
specific threats it identified to the outstanding universal value of 
the park. At its 27th Session in July 2003, the Committee decided to 
remove the park from the Danger List. The decision (27 COM 7A.12) is 
conveyed below:

    The World Heritage Committee,
    1. Notes the detailed report by the State Party provided on 
April 17, 2003;
    2. Urges the State Party to continue to report on Yellowstone's 
snowmobile phase-out and other efforts to ensure that winter travel 
facilities respect the protection of the Park, its visitors, and its 
wildlife;
    3. Recommends that the State Party continue its efforts in 
ensuring the McLaren Mine tailings are not contaminating the 
property;
    4. Recognizes the progress made in addressing all the key issues 
that led to Danger Listing of the property in 1995 and considers 
that the reasons for retaining the property on this List no longer 
exist;
    5. Congratulates the State Party for the considerable efforts 
and suggests to use this as a model case for promoting success 
stories of the World Heritage Convention and for international co-
operation with other States Parties facing similar problems in World 
Heritage properties;
    6. Decides to remove the property from the List of World 
Heritage in Danger.
    7. Invites the State Party:
    (a) to continue its commitment to address the issues that have 
concerned the Committee in the past;
    (b) to provide to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2005, 
existing recovery plans setting out targets and indicators for the 6 
remaining long-term management issues (mining activities outside the 
park, threats to bison, threats to cutthroat trout, water quality 
issues, road impacts, visitor use impacts);
    (c) to continue to report to the Committee on the condition of 
the original threats and the progress made towards resolving these 
issues until such time that the Committee decides that the reports 
are no longer needed. These reports shall include public input, 
including--but not limited to--independent experts, NGOs, and other 
key stakeholders.

B. The NPS's Draft Site Report

    In accordance with the Committee's request included in its decision 
to remove the park from the Danger List, the NPS has prepared a Site 
Report to continue to provide information to the World Heritage 
Committee on the original threats and the progress made towards 
resolving these issues. The Site Report provides a synopsis of the 
current status of the six specific threats outlined in 7(b) of the 
Committee's decision. The full text of the draft Site Report is as 
follows.

Yellowstone National Park Report to the World Heritage Committee; 
Status of Key Issues, January 2005

Introduction

    Yellowstone National Park (Yellowstone) was inscribed as a World 
Heritage Site in 1978. Yellowstone National Park was inscribed as a 
World Heritage Site in Danger on December 5, 1995. In their report, 
the World Heritage Committee (WHC) cited specific threats and 
dangers that were already affecting, were beginning to affect, or 
had potential to seriously derogate the outstanding universal value 
for which Yellowstone was established as the nation's first national 
park, and one of the first World Heritage Sites. In July 2003, the 
WHC congratulated the park for ``the considerable efforts'' that 
went into ``the progress made in addressing all the key issues that 
led to Danger Listing of the site * * *'' and considers ``* * *the 
reasons for retaining the site on this List no longer exist.'' As a 
consequence, Yellowstone National Park was removed from the list of 
World Heritage Sites in Danger.
    However, the WHC invited Yellowstone to (1) continue its 
commitment to address the original issues; (2) provide the WHC 
recovery plans regarding those issues; (3) continue to provide 
progress reports to WHC on the original threats and to provide 
opportunities for the public and interested NGOs to comment on the 
progress reports.
    In keeping with the WHC's request, this document is the second 
progress report, and includes plans and actions currently planned or 
underway, that specifically seek to redress the 1995 threats and 
dangers to the outstanding universal value.
    See: https://www.nps.gov/yell/index.htm and https://www.nps.gov/
yell/publications/worldheritage/.
    In all resource cases described below, Yellowstone is guided 
first by the relevant statutory laws of the United States 
emphasizing parks such as the Yellowstone Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 21-
22), NPS Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), General Authorities Act 
(16 U.S.C. 1a-1), National Parks and Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 1a-
7), the ``Redwood Act'' (16 U.S.C. 1a-1), and the National Parks 
Omnibus Management Act (16 U.S.C. 5901 et seq.). In addition, other 
national statutes in part dwell on parks such as the Clean Air Act 
(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), 
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332 et seq.), 
Endangered Species Act (7 U.S.C. 136 as amended), Geothermal Steam 
Act (30 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 431 et 
seq.), Historic Sites Act (49 Stat. 666), National Historic 
Preservation Act (80 Stat. 915 as amended), Archaeological and 
Historic Preservation Act (88 Stat. 174), are examples among many 
others.
    Any of these statutes can be retrieved from: https://
data2.itc.nps.gov/npspolicy/getlaws.cfm.
    In many instances, Presidential Executive Orders and ``Rules,'' 
or Regulatory Law, are more specific and focused than statutes and 
serve as detailed operating principles for the national parks.
    For Executive Orders see: www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/.
    For the Code of Federal Regulations see:

https://data2.itc.nps.gov/npspolicy/getlaws.cfm.
www.gpoaccess.gov.

    Finally, relevant governance for National Park Service (NPS) 
activities that are the most detailed are the NPS Management 
Policies and Director's Orders that are available and can be readily 
located at:
http: // data2. itc. nps. gov/ npspolicy / getlaws. cfm.

Progress on 1995 Threats

Mining Activities

    Threat in 1995: The New World Mine was a major Crown Butte 
Mines, Inc. proposal to reopen an older mining area on patented and 
U.S. Forest Service lands to new gold and silver harvest. The site 
was adjacent to the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness area (Gallatin 
National Forest) and Yellowstone National Park and was perceived to 
be a major threat to the resources of the National Forest Wilderness 
and Yellowstone National Park.
    Outcome: The U.S. government and Crown Butte Mines, Inc. signed 
an agreement in 1996 to refrain from mining these lands, and the 
Congress appropriated $65 million for the acquisition of lands and 
interests, including cleanup of toxic overburden and tailings left 
over from a century of previous mining activity.
    Status: The new mining proposal was shelved and most of the 
property was transferred to public domain. Cleanup of toxic 
materials from past mining started in 2000 and is expected to take 7 
years, but post-project maintenance will be funded in perpetuity. 
One such site, the McLaren mine tailings, was left out of the 
cleanup agreement and, while the tailings (which are outside the 
Yellowstone) have stabilized and water quality inside the park has 
improved, the Yellowstone continues efforts to have them removed and 
the site restored.
    Plans/Actions: See:

https://www.nps.gov/yell/stateofthepark.htm.
https://www.fs.fed.us/r1/gallatin.
https://www.maximtechnologies.com/newworld.

Threats to Bison

    Threat in 1995: Yellowstone bison, some of which are infected 
with Brucella abortus, the agent that causes the disease 
Brucellosis, occasionally roam outside park boundaries. These bison 
may potentially transmit Brucella to livestock grazing outside the 
park which could jeopardize the ``Brucellosis Free'' status of 
states bordering Yellowstone. As such, the states view the presence 
of Brucella in park wildlife as a significant economic threat to the 
livestock industry. Occasionally, animals migrate out of the park 
and some are destroyed, especially when bison population numbers are 
high and the winters are severe.
    Outcome: In 2000, Yellowstone National Park, State of Montana, 
U.S. Forest Service, USDA Plant and Animal Health Inspection Service 
cosigned a joint bison management

[[Page 1472]]

plan that agreed to conserve bison populations yet manage the risk 
of transmission from bison to cattle within the State of Montana. 
This is a long-term plan that should manage risks in the short- and 
medium-term, but set the stage for future discussions about 
eradication of the disease. It is also an incremental plan that 
becomes more wildlife-friendly and yet lowers transmission risk to 
cattle with each incremental success.
    Status: This carefully crafted consensus-based plan has been 
successfully implemented for 4 years. While many people in the 
conservation community do not support the plan, in the last four 
years the core Yellowstone bison population has been sustained at or 
above 3000 animals, which is considered a high population level. In 
addition, the plan addresses each of the major issues regarding the 
risk of brucellosis transmission from bison to livestock. For the 
first time ever, non-infected bison captured at the boundary in the 
winter of 2003-2004, were vaccinated against the disease and 
released back into Yellowstone instead of being destroyed. An 
Environmental Impact Study concerning the remote vaccination of 
herds within Yellowstone was officially begun in 2004, and includes 
substantial regional public involvement. Discussions and research 
continue to consider ways to eventually eliminate brucellosis from 
wildlife in the Greater Yellowstone Area while maintaining wild and 
free ranging wildlife herds.
    Plans/Actions: See:

https://www.nps.gov/yell/technical/planning/index.htm.
https://www.nps.gov/yell/publications/index.htm.
https://www.nps.gov/yell/technical/planning/bison/index.htm.

Threats to Cutthroat Trout

    Threats in 1995: In 1994, voracious, predatory, non-native lake 
trout were discovered in Yellowstone Lake threatening the existence 
of the rare, endemic Yellowstone cutthroat trout, plus 42 other 
native birds and mammals that more or less depend on cutthroat trout 
for survival. It could also potentially destroy a sport fishery that 
once had a $36 million annual value.
    Outcome: Fish experts have concluded that the risk of functional 
extinction of the native trout was real, substantial, and urgent, 
but that no technology is known to completely eradicate lake trout 
from the lake. The best that could be hoped for was long-term 
suppression of lake trout, through the annual deployment of 
``industrial-strength gillnetting.'' This partial solution was 
implemented by NPS beginning in 1995, targeting the lake trout that 
are thought to have been in the lake and reproducing for about 20 
years. A no-limit, no-live-release regulation on lake trout for 
sport anglers was also put into effect.
    Status: The gillnetting fishing effort has increased each year 
and has resulted in the destruction of over 100,000 adult and 
juvenile lake trout. Catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) has declined 
considerably from the high in 1998 and has generally continued to 
decline annually since that time, which suggests the program has 
measurably reduced the population in 2003 and 2004, and if the CPUE 
continues to decline it also signals an indication that the 
population is collapsing.
    Plans/Actions: In addition to annual refinements in gillnetting 
technology to improve take-efficiency, nighttime electrofishing over 
lake trout spawning beds was attempted for the first time with 
encouraging success, perhaps opening a new, independent method of 
efficient harvest. Discussions on methods of destroying fertilized 
eggs and larval fish in lake bottom rubble are at an early stage of 
discussion and may lead to additional measures of control.
    See:

https://www.nps.gov/yell/stateofthepark.htm.
https://www.nps.gov/yell/publications/index.htm.
https://www.nps.gov/yell/publications/index.htm.
https://www.nps.gov/yell/planvisit/todo/fishing/fishreports.htm.
https://www.nps.gov/yell/tours/thismonth/aug2004/fish/index.htm 
(video clips).

Water Quality Issues

    Threats in 1995: Yellowstone National Park hosts almost 5 
million human use days annually. Old, outdated waste treatment 
plants, lift stations, and underground lines, and older single wall 
fuel tanks were causing an unacceptable level of accidental 
overflows, ruptures, and spills affecting soils, ground and surface 
waters degrading localized wild lands. In 1995, the failing 
wastewater treatment plant at Norris Village was closed upon 
recommendations of the U.S. Public Health Service.
    Outcome: In the past five years Congress has appropriated $22 
million for water and sewage projects and special monies to replace 
all single wall fuel tanks. These projects have reduced the backlog 
in the arena by approximately 30%.
    Status: All of the park's fuel storage tanks have been replaced 
with new double-walled liquid tanks or replaced with more 
environmentally friendly propane gas tanks. A new wastewater plant 
has been constructed at Old Faithful, the closed Norris system is 
being replaced now, and the Madison system is being designed. Older 
or problematic lift stations, lines, grease traps have been replaced 
at many locations in the park. A backlog of deteriorated smaller 
wastewater facilities remain and aged (pre-1966) distribution 
systems in Yellowstone and will be replaced or updated in the future 
as funds are available.
    Plans/Actions: See:

https://www.nps.gov/yell/stateofthepark.htm.
https://www.nps.gov/yell/publications/pdfs/strategicplan.pdf.
https://www.nps.gov/yell/technical/planning/index.htm.

Road Impacts

    Threats in 1995: Yellowstone's road system was never designed 
for the volume, size, and weight of vehicles that travel through the 
park today. The park maintains 478 miles of roads of which 310 are 
paved and considered primary roads for the public. The remaining 156 
miles are paved or gravel secondary roads for service and/or light 
public use. Road engineers, maintenance workers, and virtually all 
the visiting public considered the condition of the road system in 
1995 deplorable.
    Outcome: In partnership with the Federal Highway Administration, 
Yellowstone has an integrated, methodical and long-term program to 
improve the fabric of the park's roads and lessen unsafe conditions 
and unsatisfactory experiences for visitors, and prevention of 
resource degradation. An annual funded program of complete bed and/
or surface replacement is expected to continue through 2017 although 
the Transportation Bill that has funded reconstruction expired in 
2003 and a new Bill has not yet been authorized.
    Status: Much has been accomplished since 1995 upgrading the 
existing road system, but it is a slow process because of the short 
summer construction season and the reality that reconstruction must 
be reasonably compatible with summer visitors. As noted above, the 
current program will be carried out annually through the year 2017, 
if the Transportation Bill is reauthorized, after-which the 
structural deficiencies should be corrected. The park also issued 
its Business Plan in 2003, which is its statement of operational 
needs for the next 5 years. In that plan, deficiencies in cyclical 
maintenance of roads are articulated and, if the park has authorized 
cyclical maintenance funding, this would keep the new, rebuilt roads 
in top, non-deteriorating condition.
    Plans/Actions: See:

https://www.nps.gov/yell/stateofthepark.htm.
https://www.nps.gov/yell/businessplan/index.htm.
https://www.nps.gov/yell/technical/planning/index.htm.

Visitor Use Impacts

    Threats in 1995: Increasing visitor pressures on the natural and 
cultural resources of the park have been of concern to managers for 
many years. Recently, the park has hosted about 3 million visitors 
per year, which represents roughly 5 million visitor-use days 
annually. The quality of a visitor's Yellowstone experience in terms 
of sights, sounds and smells has also been extensively debated. 
Concerns have been raised most strongly regarding winter use in the 
park, although peak summer season crowding has been an issue for 
some. The number of visitors in the park, whether summer or winter, 
is a contentious subject with the U.S. public, who are divided among 
those who believe the park is overused, or that use is about right, 
or that the park could handle more visitors. The NPS Mission is to 
conserve the natural and cultural resources and to provide for the 
public enjoyment of the same in such manner as will leave them 
unimpaired for future generations.
    Outcome: Winter use has been very controversial starting with a 
decision in 2000 to ban snowmobiles and replace them with snow 
coaches. Litigation and decisions by two different Federal judges 
have affected the decisionmaking process. Most recently, the 2000 
decision was vacated by a Federal judge. The NPS has just published 
a final rule for a Temporary Winter Use Plan that substantially 
reduces the daily maximum

[[Page 1473]]

number of snowmobiles from historic highs (720 compared to 1,650 per 
peak day), requires the use of best available technology, which will 
reduce emissions (by 90%) and noise, and require all travel groups 
to be accompanied by guide to reduce wildlife conflicts.
    Status: The NPS believes the most recent decision addresses 
winter use-related issues and the park's goals of protecting park 
resources, protecting employee and visitor health and safety, and 
improving the quality of the visitor experience. The NPS also 
believes the final rule for a Temporary Winter Use Plan honors the 
rulings of both Federal judges and is hopeful that legal challenges 
will not disrupt the implementation of the interim plan. A provision 
in the recently signed appropriations law guarantees that the 
interim plan will be in effect for at least the 2004-05 winter 
season. The NPS will be developing a new Environmental Impact 
Statement to address the long term winter use issue and that process 
is expected to take several years to complete.
    Spring, summer, and fall visitation continues to be below the 
high level measured in 1995, and visitor growth appears to have 
diminished as an issue in the eyes of many. Separately, the park has 
focused on development of partnerships to encourage more 
sustainability in visitor use. Several partnerships encourage use of 
alternate fuels for transportation and facilities or highlight 
hybrid automobiles for transportation. Another partnership is 
working to reduce solid waste, foster recycling, and grow into 
large-scale composting of organic materials. These partnerships 
should help the park and adjacent communities foster a region-wide 
approach serving visitors more efficiently and with less resource 
consumption in the future.
    Plans/Actions: See:

https://www.nps.gov/yell/stateofthepark.htm.
https://www.nps.gov/yell/technical/planning/winteruse/plan/index.htm.

C. Public Comment Solicitation

    Persons wishing to comment may do so by any one of several methods. 
They may mail comments to Suzanne Lewis, Superintendent, Yellowstone 
National Park, PO Box 168, Yellowstone National Park, WY 82190-0168. 
They also may comment via e-mail to yell_world_heritage@nps.gov 
(include name and return address in the e-mail message). Finally, they 
may hand-deliver comments to park headquarters in Mammoth Hot Springs, 
Wyoming 82190.
    The NPS practice is to make comments, including names and home 
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular 
business hours. Individual respondents may request we withhold their 
home address from the record, which we will honor to the extent 
allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would 
withhold from the record a respondent's identify, as allowable by law. 
If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state 
this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not 
consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from 
organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying 
themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or 
businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

    Dated: January 3, 2005.
Paul Hoffman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 05-351 Filed 1-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-52-P