Final Environmental Impact Statement/General Management Plan, Crater Lake National Park, Douglas, Jackson and Klamath Counties, OR; Notice of Availability, 32845-32846 [05-11144]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 107 / Monday, June 6, 2005 / Notices
Dated: May 16, 2005.
Patricia A. Hooks,
Regional Director, Southeast Region, National
Park Service.
[FR Doc. 05–11145 Filed 6–3–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–53–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
General Management Plan, Final
Environmental Impact Statement,
Colorado National Monument, CO
National Park Service,
Department of the Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability of the
Final Environmental Impact Statement
for the General Management Plan,
Colorado National Monument.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Pursuant to National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42
U.S.C. 4332(C), the National Park
Service announces the availability of a
Final Environmental Impact Statement
for the General Management Plan,
Colorado National Monument,
Colorado.
The National Park Service will
execute a Record of Decision (ROD) no
sooner than 30 days following
publication by the Environmental
Protection Agency of the Notice of
Availability of the Final Environmental
Impact Statement.
ADDRESSES: Information will be
available for public inspection in the
office of the Superintendent, and at the
following locations:
Colorado National Monument Visitor
Center/Headquarters, Bruce Noble,
Superintendent, 7 miles east of Fruita
on Rim Rock Drive, Fruita, CO 81521–
0001, Tel: (970) 858–3617, ext. 300.
Fruita Branch Mesa County Public
Library District, 324 East Aspen
Avenue, Fruita, CO 81521, Tel. (970)
858–7703.
Mesa County Central Library, 530
Grand Avenue, Grand Junction, Co
81502–5019, Tel. (970) 243–4442.
Internet Address: https://
planning.nps.gov/plans.cfm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Contact Superintendent Bruce Noble,
Colorado National Monument, Fruita,
CO 81521–0001; Tel: (970) 858–3617,
ext. 300; FAX: (970) 858–0372; e-mail:
bruce noble@nps.gov.
DATES:
Dated: April 27, 2005.
Michael D. Snyder,
Acting Director, Intermountain Region,
National Park Service.
[FR Doc. 05–11142 Filed 6–3–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–CP–M
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:25 Jun 03, 2005
Jkt 205001
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
General Management Plan, Crater Lake
National Park, Douglas, Jackson and
Klamath Counties, OR; Notice of
Availability
SUMMARY: Pursuant to § 102(2)(C) of
the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (Pub. L. 91–190, as amended),
and the Council on Environmental
Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500–
1508), the National Park Service,
Department of the Interior, has prepared
a final general management plan (GMP)
and environmental impact statement
(EIS) for Crater Lake National Park,
Oregon. The final EIS identifies and
analyzes four GMP alternatives which
respond to both NPS planning
requirements and to the issues
identified during the public scoping
process. The ‘‘no-action’’ alternative
(Alternative 1) describes the existing
conditions and trends of park
management and serves as a baseline for
comparison in evaluating the other
alternatives. The three ‘‘action’’
alternatives variously address visitor
use, natural and cultural resource
management, and park development.
Alternative 2, the preferred alternative,
emphasizes increased opportunities in
recreational diversity, resource
preservation, research and resource
education. Under Alternative 3 visitors
would experience a greater range of
natural and cultural resources through
recreational opportunities and
education. The focus of Alternative 4
would be on preservation and
restoration of natural processes.
Background: Public meetings and
newsletters have been used to keep the
public informed and involved in the
conservation planning and
environmental impact analysis process
for the GMP. A mailing list was
compiled that consisted of members of
government agencies, nongovernmental
groups, businesses, legislators, local
governments, and interested citizens.
The Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS
was published in the Federal Register
on May 25, 2001. A newsletter issued
January 2001 introduced the GMP
planning process (a total of 72 written
comments were received in response).
Public meetings were held during April
2001 in Klamath Falls, Medford,
Roseburg, and Salem and were attended
by 96 people. A second newsletter
issued in July 2001 summarized all
comments received in the meetings and
in response to newsletter 1. These
comments were used to complete the
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32845
park purpose and significance
statements that serve as the foundation
for the rest of the GMP planning (and
were referred to throughout
development of the GMP).
A third newsletter distributed in the
spring of 2002 described the draft
alternative concepts and management
zoning proposed for managing the park
(a total of 95 comments were received
in response). In general, opinions were
fairly divided in support of individual
alternatives and potential ways to
address issues. A number of letters
favored continued snowmobile use,
while other people favored eliminating
snowmobiles in the park. Opinions were
also divided regarding ways to manage
traffic congestion on Rim Drive—
maintaining current two-way traffic,
converting part of the road to one-way
traffic, using shuttles, or closure of the
road to traffic. Most respondents favored
use of shuttles. A number of people who
opposed partnering with private
industry were concerned with potential
for large-scale commercialization within
the park.
The Notice of Availability for the
Draft EIS and GMP was printed August
3, 2004. The public comment period
was open until October 6, 2004. A total
of 646 comments were received. Fortyseven letters and e-mails were sent in by
individuals. Four agencies responded.
Three different form letters accounted
for the remaining 599 comments. The
most common comment issues were
snowmobiles (24 letters/e-mails and all
3 form letters), road closure (15 letters/
e-mails and 2 of 3 form letters), shuttles
(7 letters/e-mails and 1 of 3 form
letters), and snow coachers (4 letters/emails and 1 of 3 form letters). Comments
and representative letters received on
the Draft document have been
incorporated into the Final EIS and
GMP.
Proposed Plan and Alternatives:
Alternative 1 is the ‘‘no action’’
alternative and represents continuation
of the current management direction
and approach at the park. It is a way of
evaluating the proposed actions of the
other three alternatives. Existing
buildings and facilities in the park
would remain; some historic structures
would be adaptively used. Munson
Valley would continue to serve as the
center of NPS administration,
maintenance, and housing. The existing
road access and circulation system
within the park would continue, and
visitor recreational opportunities and
interpretive programs in the park would
continue.
Alternative 2 is the ‘‘agency
preferred’’ alternative and has also been
determined to be the ‘‘environmentally
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
32846
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 107 / Monday, June 6, 2005 / Notices
preferred’’ alternative. Management of
the park would emphasize increased
opportunities for recreational diversity
and research and education. Most
recreational opportunities would
remain, but new opportunities along
Rim Drive would allow visitors to
directly experience the primary resource
of Crater Lake in ways other than
driving. Any new uses around the rim
would be non-motorized and low
impact. Research and educational
opportunities would be enhanced. A
new science and learning center would
form the core of the new research. The
park would expand and encourage
partnerships with universities,
scientists, and educational groups. The
information gathered would be
disseminated throughout the park to
rangers, interpretive staff, and visitors.
Alternative 3 emphasizes enjoyment
of the natural environment. This
alternative would allow visitors to
experience a greater range of natural and
cultural resources significant and
unique to the park through recreational
opportunities and education. A wider
range of visitor experiences would reach
out to greater diversity of visitor groups.
Recreational programs, which would
focus on minimizing impact, would
provide the focus for interpretation and
education. Resources would be managed
to permit recreation while protecting the
resources. Opportunities for recreation
would be viewed in a regional context,
where the park could serve as a source
of information for regional recreational
opportunities. Use of most current
facilities would continue. News trails,
new interpretive signs and other media,
and expanded tour programs would be
possible in Alternative 3.
In Alternative 4, park management
would be focused on resource
preservation and restoration. The park
would be an active partner in a regional
conservation strategy that would
include other agencies and
environmental groups. Most park
operations and visitor contact facilities
would be outside the park and shared
with other agencies and communities.
Areas that have been altered would be
restored to their natural conditions.
Cultural resources would be preserved
at the highest level possible. The visitor
experience would stress activities that
have low environmental impacts on and
are harmonious with the resources.
More emphasis would be placed on selfguided and discovery education, and
interpretive programs would focus on
stewardship. Vehicular transportation
would be altered to reinforce the visitor
experience. The Rim Road would be
closed between Cleetwood Cove and
Kerr Notch. Winter use of the park
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:25 Jun 03, 2005
Jkt 205001
would change to allow natural processes
to proceed with fewer disturbances than
current management practices allow.
Winter plowing of the road to the rim
would stop, except for spring opening.
Snowmobiling along North Junction
Road would no longer be allowed.
Facilities that are not historic and not
essential to park functions would be
removed and the area rehabilitated.
Functions that are, by necessity parkbased, would be retained in the park.
Public Review: The Final EIS/GMP is
now available. Interested persons and
organizations wishing to express any
concerns or provide relevant
information are encouraged to obtain
the document from the Superintendent,
Crater Lake National Park, P.O. Box 7,
Highway 62, Crater Lake, Oregon, or via
telephone at (541) 594–3001. The
document may also be viewed at area
libraries, or obtained electronically via
the park’s Web site at https://
www.planning.nps.gov. Please note that
names and addresses of people who
comment become part of the public
record. If individuals commenting
request that their name or\and 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 will
withhold 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.
Decision: Following release of the
Final EIS/GMP, a Record of Decision
(ROD) will be prepared and approved
not sooner than 30 days after the EPA
has published its notice of filing of the
document in the Federal Register. A
notice of the approved ROD would be
similarly published, as well as
announced through local and regional
press media. As a delegated EIS, the
official responsible for the decision is
the Regional Director, Pacific West
Region, National Park Service;
subsequently the official responsible for
implementing the approved GMP is the
Superintendent, Crater Lake National
Park.
Dated: April 4, 2005.
Jonathan B. Jarvis,
Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
[FR Doc. 05–11144 Filed 6–3–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–52–P
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
The Transportation Plan/Draft
Environmental Impact Statement,
Grand Teton National Park, WY
National Park Service,
Department of the Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability of the draft
environmental impact statement for the
Transportation Plan, Grand Teton
National Park.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42
U.S.C. 4332(c), the National Park
Service announces the availability of
draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the Transportation Plan, Grand
Teton National Park, Wyoming.
DATES: The National Park Service will
accept comments from the public on the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for 60 days after publication of this
notice. No public meetings are
scheduled at this time, but may be
announced at a later date.
ADDRESSES: Information will be
available for public review and
comment at the Park Headquarters
Visitor Center in Moose, Wyoming and
the Reference Desk of the Teton County
Library in Jackson, Wyoming. It will
also be available online at both https://
parkplanning.nps.gov and https://
www.nps.gov/grte/plans/planning.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Gibson Scott, Superintendent,
Grand Teton National Park, PO Drawer
170, Moose, Wyoming 83012–0170,
(370) 739–3410.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: If you
wish to comment, you may submit your
comments by any one of several
methods. You may mail comments to
Superintendent Office, P.O. Drawer 170,
Moose, Wyoming 83012–0170,
Attention: Transportation Plan. You
may also comment via the e-mail to
https://parkplanning.nps.gov, choose
‘‘Grand Teton National Park’’ or ‘‘Plan/
Documents Open for Comment’’ and
then click ‘‘Comment on Document’’.
Finally, you may hand-deliver
comments to the Grand Teton Visitor
Center, Moose, Wyoming. Our practice
is to make comments, including names
and home addresses of respondents,
available for public review during
business hours. Individual respondents
may request that we withhold their
home address from the record, which
we will honor to the extent allowable
law. There also may be circumstances in
which we would withhold from the
record a respondent’s identity, as
allowable by law. If you wish us to
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 107 (Monday, June 6, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32845-32846]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-11144]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Final Environmental Impact Statement/General Management Plan,
Crater Lake National Park, Douglas, Jackson and Klamath Counties, OR;
Notice of Availability
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Sec. 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, as amended), and the Council on
Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500-1508), the National
Park Service, Department of the Interior, has prepared a final general
management plan (GMP) and environmental impact statement (EIS) for
Crater Lake National Park, Oregon. The final EIS identifies and
analyzes four GMP alternatives which respond to both NPS planning
requirements and to the issues identified during the public scoping
process. The ``no-action'' alternative (Alternative 1) describes the
existing conditions and trends of park management and serves as a
baseline for comparison in evaluating the other alternatives. The three
``action'' alternatives variously address visitor use, natural and
cultural resource management, and park development. Alternative 2, the
preferred alternative, emphasizes increased opportunities in
recreational diversity, resource preservation, research and resource
education. Under Alternative 3 visitors would experience a greater
range of natural and cultural resources through recreational
opportunities and education. The focus of Alternative 4 would be on
preservation and restoration of natural processes.
Background: Public meetings and newsletters have been used to keep
the public informed and involved in the conservation planning and
environmental impact analysis process for the GMP. A mailing list was
compiled that consisted of members of government agencies,
nongovernmental groups, businesses, legislators, local governments, and
interested citizens. The Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was
published in the Federal Register on May 25, 2001. A newsletter issued
January 2001 introduced the GMP planning process (a total of 72 written
comments were received in response). Public meetings were held during
April 2001 in Klamath Falls, Medford, Roseburg, and Salem and were
attended by 96 people. A second newsletter issued in July 2001
summarized all comments received in the meetings and in response to
newsletter 1. These comments were used to complete the park purpose and
significance statements that serve as the foundation for the rest of
the GMP planning (and were referred to throughout development of the
GMP).
A third newsletter distributed in the spring of 2002 described the
draft alternative concepts and management zoning proposed for managing
the park (a total of 95 comments were received in response). In
general, opinions were fairly divided in support of individual
alternatives and potential ways to address issues. A number of letters
favored continued snowmobile use, while other people favored
eliminating snowmobiles in the park. Opinions were also divided
regarding ways to manage traffic congestion on Rim Drive--maintaining
current two-way traffic, converting part of the road to one-way
traffic, using shuttles, or closure of the road to traffic. Most
respondents favored use of shuttles. A number of people who opposed
partnering with private industry were concerned with potential for
large-scale commercialization within the park.
The Notice of Availability for the Draft EIS and GMP was printed
August 3, 2004. The public comment period was open until October 6,
2004. A total of 646 comments were received. Forty-seven letters and e-
mails were sent in by individuals. Four agencies responded. Three
different form letters accounted for the remaining 599 comments. The
most common comment issues were snowmobiles (24 letters/e-mails and all
3 form letters), road closure (15 letters/e-mails and 2 of 3 form
letters), shuttles (7 letters/e-mails and 1 of 3 form letters), and
snow coachers (4 letters/e-mails and 1 of 3 form letters). Comments and
representative letters received on the Draft document have been
incorporated into the Final EIS and GMP.
Proposed Plan and Alternatives: Alternative 1 is the ``no action''
alternative and represents continuation of the current management
direction and approach at the park. It is a way of evaluating the
proposed actions of the other three alternatives. Existing buildings
and facilities in the park would remain; some historic structures would
be adaptively used. Munson Valley would continue to serve as the center
of NPS administration, maintenance, and housing. The existing road
access and circulation system within the park would continue, and
visitor recreational opportunities and interpretive programs in the
park would continue.
Alternative 2 is the ``agency preferred'' alternative and has also
been determined to be the ``environmentally
[[Page 32846]]
preferred'' alternative. Management of the park would emphasize
increased opportunities for recreational diversity and research and
education. Most recreational opportunities would remain, but new
opportunities along Rim Drive would allow visitors to directly
experience the primary resource of Crater Lake in ways other than
driving. Any new uses around the rim would be non-motorized and low
impact. Research and educational opportunities would be enhanced. A new
science and learning center would form the core of the new research.
The park would expand and encourage partnerships with universities,
scientists, and educational groups. The information gathered would be
disseminated throughout the park to rangers, interpretive staff, and
visitors.
Alternative 3 emphasizes enjoyment of the natural environment. This
alternative would allow visitors to experience a greater range of
natural and cultural resources significant and unique to the park
through recreational opportunities and education. A wider range of
visitor experiences would reach out to greater diversity of visitor
groups. Recreational programs, which would focus on minimizing impact,
would provide the focus for interpretation and education. Resources
would be managed to permit recreation while protecting the resources.
Opportunities for recreation would be viewed in a regional context,
where the park could serve as a source of information for regional
recreational opportunities. Use of most current facilities would
continue. News trails, new interpretive signs and other media, and
expanded tour programs would be possible in Alternative 3.
In Alternative 4, park management would be focused on resource
preservation and restoration. The park would be an active partner in a
regional conservation strategy that would include other agencies and
environmental groups. Most park operations and visitor contact
facilities would be outside the park and shared with other agencies and
communities. Areas that have been altered would be restored to their
natural conditions. Cultural resources would be preserved at the
highest level possible. The visitor experience would stress activities
that have low environmental impacts on and are harmonious with the
resources. More emphasis would be placed on self-guided and discovery
education, and interpretive programs would focus on stewardship.
Vehicular transportation would be altered to reinforce the visitor
experience. The Rim Road would be closed between Cleetwood Cove and
Kerr Notch. Winter use of the park would change to allow natural
processes to proceed with fewer disturbances than current management
practices allow. Winter plowing of the road to the rim would stop,
except for spring opening. Snowmobiling along North Junction Road would
no longer be allowed. Facilities that are not historic and not
essential to park functions would be removed and the area
rehabilitated. Functions that are, by necessity park-based, would be
retained in the park.
Public Review: The Final EIS/GMP is now available. Interested
persons and organizations wishing to express any concerns or provide
relevant information are encouraged to obtain the document from the
Superintendent, Crater Lake National Park, P.O. Box 7, Highway 62,
Crater Lake, Oregon, or via telephone at (541) 594-3001. The document
may also be viewed at area libraries, or obtained electronically via
the park's Web site at https://www.planning.nps.gov. Please note that
names and addresses of people who comment become part of the public
record. If individuals commenting request that their name
or[bs]and 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 will withhold 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.
Decision: Following release of the Final EIS/GMP, a Record of
Decision (ROD) will be prepared and approved not sooner than 30 days
after the EPA has published its notice of filing of the document in the
Federal Register. A notice of the approved ROD would be similarly
published, as well as announced through local and regional press media.
As a delegated EIS, the official responsible for the decision is the
Regional Director, Pacific West Region, National Park Service;
subsequently the official responsible for implementing the approved GMP
is the Superintendent, Crater Lake National Park.
Dated: April 4, 2005.
Jonathan B. Jarvis,
Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
[FR Doc. 05-11144 Filed 6-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-52-P