Merced Wild and Scenic River Revised Comprehensive Management Plan and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement; Yosemite National Park; Tuolumne, Mariposa, and Madera Counties, California; Notice of Availability, 35703-35705 [05-12207]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2005 / Notices
include recreation patterns on public
land, the relative price of the pass
compared to purchasing daily (or
weekly in some cases) entry, the
benefits provided by the pass (e.g.,
number of individuals covered by a
pass, whether the pass is per vehicle or
per person, etc.), household income and
other socioeconomic factors, the
availability and prices of potential
recreation substitutes, and perhaps the
strength of any altruistic motives that
might cause an individual to purchase
the pass even though it might only be
used on a limited basis. The strength of
any altruistic motives could potentially
be impacted by the quantity and quality
of marketing associated with the pass.
This study will include several focus
groups and a survey of current and
potential pass holders.
Focus groups will be administered to
gather information from recreationists
about current and potential pricing and
pass use. The focus group respondents
will include individuals that have
purchased one or more of the existing
passes, which include the Golden Eagle,
Golden Age, Golden Access, Duck
Stamp, and National Park Pass. The
focus groups will elicit information
about how individuals use passes, views
on how the ATB pass should be priced,
views about the benefits that the pass
should provide, and the factors that
might influence an individual’s decision
to purchase a pass. The focus groups
will be held in selected locations across
the country. It is estimated that up to
seven focus groups will be conducted
with approximately 15 respondents
each. Focus group sessions will take
approximately one hour for a total
burden of 105 hours.
The survey of current and potential
pass holders will be used to obtain
information about their pass use,
motives for purchasing, and
socioeconomic characteristics. The
survey will be designed to obtain
information that will assist in
determining the value (including,
specifically, willingness to pay for the
convenience value associated with
using a pass) individuals place on the
existing passes and in establishing a
price for the new ATB pass. In addition,
the survey will gather information
concerning the factors that might
influence an individual’s decision to
purchase a pass. The survey will elicit
information about the incremental value
individuals place on an annual pass that
provides access to all federal recreation
sites compared to access to only NPS
sites. Surveys will be conducted with
approximately 3,500 individuals. The
survey is estimated to take
approximately 20 minutes per
VerDate jul<14>2003
22:07 Jun 20, 2005
Jkt 205001
35703
respondent for a total burden of 1,167
hours.
The combined burden for this study is
estimated to be 1,272 hours.
Automated data collection: Data
collection from respondents to the
survey of pass users will include an
automated option. It is estimated that up
to half of the 3,500 respondents will
chose the automated option. The focus
groups will require face-to-face contact
thus no automated data collection will
take place in that portion of the study.
Description of respondents:
Recreationists, visitors to units of the
National Park System and other public
lands, potential visitors to units of the
National Park System and other public
lands, and current National Parks Pass
or other federal recreation area pass
holders.
Estimated average number of
respondents: 3,605 (105 for focus
groups; 3,500 for survey).
Estimated average number of
responses: 3,605 (105 for focus groups;
3,500 for survey).
Estimated average burden hours per
response: One hour for focus group
respondents; 1/3 hour for survey
respondents.
Frequency of Response: 1 time per
respondent.
Estimated annual reporting burden:
1,272 hours.
the March 1965 Selma to Montgomery
voting rights march, traveling through
Lowndes County along U.S. Highway
80, and ending at the Alabama State
Capitol in Montgomery. The document
describes four management alternatives
for consideration and analyzes the
environmental impacts of those
alternatives. These alternatives,
including the preferred Alternative C,
were presented in the draft EIS.
DATES: The National Park Service will
execute a Record of Decision (ROD) no
sooner than 30 days following
publication of the Environmental
Protection Agency’s notice of
availability in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final EIS are
available by contacting John Barrett,
National Park Service, 100 Alabama St.,
SW., Atlanta, GA 30303.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
Barrett, 404–562–3124, extension 637.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: There
have been no substantive changes to the
alternatives as described in the draft EIS
and Alternative C remains the preferred
alternative.
The responsible official for this
Environmental Impact Statement is
Patricia A. Hooks, Regional Director,
Southeast Region, National Park
Service, 100 Alabama Street SW., 1924
Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
Leonard E. Stowe,
National Park Service Information Collection
Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 05–12208 Filed 6–20–05; 8:45 am]
Dated: May 11, 2005.
Patricia A. Hooks,
Regional Director, Southeast Region.
[FR Doc. 05–12214 Filed 6–20–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–52–P
BILLING CODE 4312–52–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
National Park Service
Notice of Availability of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for
the Selma to Montgomery National
Historic Trail Comprehensive
Management Plan
Merced Wild and Scenic River Revised
Comprehensive Management Plan and
Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement; Yosemite National
Park; Tuolumne, Mariposa, and Madera
Counties, California; Notice of
Availability
SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(C)
of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 the National Park Service
announces the availability of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for the Selma to Montgomery National
Historic Trail Comprehensive
Management Plan. The authority for
publishing this notice is contained in 40
CFR 1506.6.
The document provides a framework
for the management, use, and
development of the trail by the National
Park Service and its partners over the
next 15 to 20 years. Beginning at Brown
Chapel AME Church in Selma,
Alabama, the trail follows the route of
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 Final Merced Wild and Scenic River
Revised Comprehensive Management
Plan and Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement (Final Revised Merced
River Plan/SEIS). It is intended to
amend and supplement the Merced
E:\FR\FM\21JNN1.SGM
21JNN1
35704
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2005 / Notices
Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive
Management Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Statement
(Merced River Plan/FEIS) released in
June 2000. The Final Revised Merced
River Plan/SEIS identifies and evaluates
four alternatives for guiding
management of the Merced Wild and
Scenic River within the jurisdiction of
the National Park Service in Yosemite
and the El Portal Administrative Site.
Potential impacts and appropriate
mitigation measures are assessed for
each alternative. When approved, the
plan will serve as a template for all
future decisions relating to recreation
and land use within the 81-mile Merced
River corridor on both the main stem
and South Fork. 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
the National Park Service (NPS). In
August 2000, the Merced River Plan/
FEIS was approved (the Record of
Decision was subsequently revised in
November 2000). Shortly after the
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 9th Circuit
directed the 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 programmatic guidance
identified herein would revise and
supplement the Merced River Plan/FEIS
and the park’s 1980 General
Management Plan.
Proposed Plan and Alternatives: In
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
VerDate jul<14>2003
22:07 Jun 20, 2005
Jkt 205001
with interim limits on some park
facilities; the El Portal segment
boundary would be redrawn to a
quarter-mile on either side of the river.
In addition to this proposed plan, the
Final Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS
identifies and analyzes three other
alternatives: Alternative 1—No Action;
Alternative 3—Segment Limits with
VERP Program; and Alternative 4—
Management Zone Limits with VERP
Program. Alternative 2 has also been
deemed to be the ‘‘environmentally
preferable’’ alternative.
The No Action Alternative represents
a baseline from which to compare the
three action alternatives. Under
Alternative 1, the Merced River Plan—
as detailed 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, a program of standards and
indicators under 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 Wilderness Trailhead Quota
System. Alternative 1 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 limit for each river segment and an
annual visitation limit of 5.32 million;
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
limits for each river management zone
and an annual visitation limit of 3.27
million; the El Portal segment boundary
would be drawn according to the
location of Outstandingly Remarkable
Values.
Planning Background: The draft and
final Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS
were prepared pursuant to the Wild and
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Scenic Rivers Act and National
Environmental Policy Act. On July 27,
2004, a Notice of Intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement was
published in the Federal Register. At
this time, a 30-day scoping period was
initiated. 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 emailed notices
on the park’s electronic newsletter, and
on various state-wide online bulletin
boards. Over 100 letters, faxes, and
emails were received and considered
during the development of the Draft
Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS. All
written scoping comments, as well as
oral testimony from public hearings, can
be viewed on the park’s Web site
(https://www.nps.gov/yose/planning/
mrp/revision). A scoping report is also
available.
On January 14, 2005, a Notice of
Availability for the Draft Merced Wild
and Scenic River Revised
Comprehensive Management Plan
Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement was published in the Federal
Register. The public review period
continued through March 22, 2005.
Approximately 1,500 printed copies and
600 CD–ROM versions of the draft SEIS
were mailed to interested individuals
and organizations. In February and
March 2005, a series of public meetings
was held in locations throughout
California to discuss the draft
document. During the public comment
period, eleven public meetings were
hosted throughout California between
February 22, 2005 and March 7, 2005.
Meetings were held at El Portal, San
Francisco, Burbank, Oakhurst,
Mammoth Lakes, Sacramento, Fresno,
Merced, Mariposa, Groveland and in
Yosemite Valley. An additional Open
House was hosted in Yosemite Valley
prior to the end of the public comment
period. Each public meeting was set up
to allow for (1) informal conversations
between park staff (including
consultants) and the public, (2) a
presentation by park staff on the plan’s
proposed elements, and (3) a formal
public hearing attended by a court
reporter. The public was encouraged to
submit written comments on the Draft
E:\FR\FM\21JNN1.SGM
21JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 21, 2005 / Notices
Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS via
letter, email or fax. Attendees could also
leave written comments on comment
forms provided at the meetings.
The NPS contacted local, regional,
and national media outlets, issued press
releases that were faxed and emailed to
media outlets and phone calls that were
made to newspaper and news reporters
to generate interest in the plan. In
addition, paid newspaper
advertisements were placed in the
Mariposa Gazette, the Sierra Star
(Oakhurst, CA), the Union Democrat
(Sonora, CA), the Merced Sun-Star and
the Mammoth Times. Paid public
notices were placed in the San
Francisco Chronicle, the L.A. Times, the
Sacramento Bee, and the Fresno Bee.
Numerous stories about the plan and the
schedule of public meetings appeared in
local and regional newspapers. In
addition, several project fact sheets were
posted on the park’s Web site; fliers
were posted on community bulletin
boards, post offices, and local
businesses in communities where
public meetings were hosted; and press
release announcements were included
in the park’s Daily Report throughout
the entire comment period. The park
specifically initiated dialogue with
several interested local parties. These
included park employees and their
families, Delaware North Companies
Parks and Resorts at Yosemite (primary
concessioner) employees and residents,
and park partner staff such as the
Yosemite Institute, the Yosemite
Association, and The Yosemite Fund. In
addition, there was extensive outreach
within the local communities of El
Portal and Wawona through
participation at local Mariposa County
Planning Advisory Committee meetings.
The park also conducted a ‘‘walking
tour’’ in El Portal to discuss the process
for identifying Outstandingly
Remarkable Values within the El Portal
segment of the Merced River and the
rationale for the various El Portal
boundary alternatives. The NPS engaged
gateway communities throughout the
process through personal
communications and meetings between
the park staff and gateway community
members.
As a result of the public review
period, the NPS received comments
from 114 individuals, 25 organizations,
6 government agencies, 2 tribes and 1
university, including public testimony
given by individuals at public meetings.
Over 900 individual comments were
received. The analysis of these
comments generated about 400 concerns
statements, which were categorized and
considered for incorporation in the
planning process. The public comments
VerDate jul<14>2003
22:07 Jun 20, 2005
Jkt 205001
received and transcripts from the public
hearings are available for viewing on the
park Web site (https://www.nps.gov/
yose/planning/mrp/revision). The
Public Comment Analysis and Response
Report is included as Appendix F in the
Final SEIS.
Distribution of Final Revised Merced
River Plan/SEIS: A mail-back postcard
was sent to all individuals and
organizations on the park’s general
mailing list asking recipients if they
would like to receive a printed copy or
CD–ROM version (or both) of the Final
Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS. This
announcement also indicated that the
plan would be available for viewing on
the park’s Web site (https://
www.nps.gov/yose/planning). Copies of
the final plan will also be available at
the National Park Service headquarters
in Yosemite Valley, the Yosemite Valley
Research Library, the National Park
Service warehouse building in El Portal,
and at a number local and regional
libraries (listed in Chapter VI of the
Final SEIS).
Decision Process: Depending upon the
response from other agencies, interested
organizations, and the general public, at
this time it is anticipated that a Record
of Decision would be approved not
sooner than at least 30 days have
elapsed after publication by the EPA of
their filing notice for the Final Revised
MRP/SEIS. Notice of the approved
decision will be posted in the Federal
Register and announced in local and
regional 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 Revised
Merced River Plan is the
Superintendent, Yosemite National
Park.
Dated: May 18, 2005.
Jonathan B. Jarvis,
Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
[FR Doc. 05–12207 Filed 6–20–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–52–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Notice of Intent To Prepare a General
Management Plan and Environmental
Impact Statement
National Park Service, Interior.
Pursuant to section 102(2)(C)
of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) of 1969, the National Park
Service (NPS) announces its intent to
prepare a General Management Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement (GMP/
AGENCY:
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
35705
EIS) for Cedar Creek and Belle Grove
National Historical Park, located in
Frederick, Shenandoah, and Warren
Counties of Virginia. The park consists
of 3,000 acres that comprise significant
portions of the Cedar Creek Battlefield,
a decisive battle in the Civil War, and
Belle Grove Plantation, an antebellum
manor house listed on the National
Register of Historic Places. In the
enabling legislation for the park,
Congress established a Federal Advisory
Commission to advise in the preparation
of a GMP, and key partner organizations
who may continue to own and manage
properties within the park. Prepared by
planners at the park and in the NPS
Northeast Region, with assistance from
advisors and consultants, the GMP/EIS
will propose a long-term approach to
managing Cedar Creek and Belle Grove
National Historical Park.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Diann Jacox, Superintendent, Cedar
Creek and Belle Grove National
Historical Park, (540) 868–9176.
Consistent
with the park’s mission, NPS policy,
and other laws and regulations,
alternatives will be developed to guide
the management of the site over the next
15 to 20 years. The alternatives will
incorporate various zoning and
management prescriptions to ensure
resource protection and public
enjoyment of the site, and continued
involvement by the key partner
organizations. The environmental
consequences that could result from
implementing the various alternatives
will be evaluated in the GMP/EIS. The
public will be invited to express
opinions about the management of the
park early in the process through public
meetings and other media; and will
have an opportunity to review and
comment on the draft GMP/EIS. The
Advisory Commission and key partner
organizations will be involved early in
the planning process and will remain
actively involved throughout the
development of the plan. Following the
public review processes outlined under
NEPA, the final plan will become
official, authorizing implementation of a
preferred alternative. The target date for
the Record of Decision is October 8,
2008.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: June 2, 2005.
Diann Jacox,
Superintendent, Cedar Creek and Belle Grove
National Historical Park.
[FR Doc. 05–12211 Filed 6–20–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–52–M
E:\FR\FM\21JNN1.SGM
21JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35703-35705]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-12207]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Merced Wild and Scenic River Revised Comprehensive Management
Plan and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement; Yosemite
National Park; Tuolumne, Mariposa, and Madera Counties, California;
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
Final Merced Wild and Scenic River Revised Comprehensive Management
Plan and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final Revised
Merced River Plan/SEIS). It is intended to amend and supplement the
Merced
[[Page 35704]]
Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Statement (Merced River Plan/FEIS) released in
June 2000. The Final Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS identifies and
evaluates four alternatives for guiding management of the Merced Wild
and Scenic River within the jurisdiction of the National Park Service
in Yosemite and the El Portal Administrative Site. Potential impacts
and appropriate mitigation measures are assessed for each alternative.
When approved, the plan will serve as a template for all future
decisions relating to recreation and land use within the 81-mile Merced
River corridor on both the main stem and South Fork. 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 the National Park Service (NPS). In August 2000, the Merced River
Plan/FEIS was approved (the Record of Decision was subsequently revised
in November 2000). Shortly after the 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 9th Circuit directed the 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 programmatic guidance identified
herein would revise and supplement the Merced River Plan/FEIS and the
park's 1980 General Management Plan.
Proposed Plan and Alternatives: In 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 to a quarter-mile on
either side of the river. In addition to this proposed plan, the Final
Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS identifies and analyzes three other
alternatives: Alternative 1--No Action; Alternative 3--Segment Limits
with VERP Program; and Alternative 4--Management Zone Limits with VERP
Program. Alternative 2 has also been deemed to be the ``environmentally
preferable'' alternative.
The No Action Alternative represents a baseline from which to
compare the three action alternatives. Under Alternative 1, the Merced
River Plan--as detailed 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, a program of standards and indicators under 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 Wilderness Trailhead Quota System. Alternative 1 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 limit for each
river segment and an annual visitation limit of 5.32 million; 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 limits for each river management zone and an annual
visitation limit of 3.27 million; the El Portal segment boundary would
be drawn according to the location of Outstandingly Remarkable Values.
Planning Background: The draft and final Revised Merced River Plan/
SEIS were prepared pursuant to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and
National Environmental Policy Act. On July 27, 2004, a Notice of Intent
to prepare an environmental impact statement was published in the
Federal Register. At this time, a 30-day scoping period was initiated.
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 emailed notices on the park's electronic
newsletter, and on various state-wide online bulletin boards. Over 100
letters, faxes, and emails were received and considered during the
development of the Draft Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS. All written
scoping comments, as well as oral testimony from public hearings, can
be viewed on the park's Web site (https://www.nps.gov/yose/planning/mrp/
revision). A scoping report is also available.
On January 14, 2005, a Notice of Availability for the Draft Merced
Wild and Scenic River Revised Comprehensive Management Plan
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement was published in the
Federal Register. The public review period continued through March 22,
2005. Approximately 1,500 printed copies and 600 CD-ROM versions of the
draft SEIS were mailed to interested individuals and organizations. In
February and March 2005, a series of public meetings was held in
locations throughout California to discuss the draft document. During
the public comment period, eleven public meetings were hosted
throughout California between February 22, 2005 and March 7, 2005.
Meetings were held at El Portal, San Francisco, Burbank, Oakhurst,
Mammoth Lakes, Sacramento, Fresno, Merced, Mariposa, Groveland and in
Yosemite Valley. An additional Open House was hosted in Yosemite Valley
prior to the end of the public comment period. Each public meeting was
set up to allow for (1) informal conversations between park staff
(including consultants) and the public, (2) a presentation by park
staff on the plan's proposed elements, and (3) a formal public hearing
attended by a court reporter. The public was encouraged to submit
written comments on the Draft
[[Page 35705]]
Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS via letter, email or fax. Attendees
could also leave written comments on comment forms provided at the
meetings.
The NPS contacted local, regional, and national media outlets,
issued press releases that were faxed and emailed to media outlets and
phone calls that were made to newspaper and news reporters to generate
interest in the plan. In addition, paid newspaper advertisements were
placed in the Mariposa Gazette, the Sierra Star (Oakhurst, CA), the
Union Democrat (Sonora, CA), the Merced Sun-Star and the Mammoth Times.
Paid public notices were placed in the San Francisco Chronicle, the
L.A. Times, the Sacramento Bee, and the Fresno Bee. Numerous stories
about the plan and the schedule of public meetings appeared in local
and regional newspapers. In addition, several project fact sheets were
posted on the park's Web site; fliers were posted on community bulletin
boards, post offices, and local businesses in communities where public
meetings were hosted; and press release announcements were included in
the park's Daily Report throughout the entire comment period. The park
specifically initiated dialogue with several interested local parties.
These included park employees and their families, Delaware North
Companies Parks and Resorts at Yosemite (primary concessioner)
employees and residents, and park partner staff such as the Yosemite
Institute, the Yosemite Association, and The Yosemite Fund. In
addition, there was extensive outreach within the local communities of
El Portal and Wawona through participation at local Mariposa County
Planning Advisory Committee meetings. The park also conducted a
``walking tour'' in El Portal to discuss the process for identifying
Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the El Portal segment of the
Merced River and the rationale for the various El Portal boundary
alternatives. The NPS engaged gateway communities throughout the
process through personal communications and meetings between the park
staff and gateway community members.
As a result of the public review period, the NPS received comments
from 114 individuals, 25 organizations, 6 government agencies, 2 tribes
and 1 university, including public testimony given by individuals at
public meetings. Over 900 individual comments were received. The
analysis of these comments generated about 400 concerns statements,
which were categorized and considered for incorporation in the planning
process. The public comments received and transcripts from the public
hearings are available for viewing on the park Web site (https://
www.nps.gov/yose/planning/mrp/revision). The Public Comment Analysis
and Response Report is included as Appendix F in the Final SEIS.
Distribution of Final Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS: A mail-back
postcard was sent to all individuals and organizations on the park's
general mailing list asking recipients if they would like to receive a
printed copy or CD-ROM version (or both) of the Final Revised Merced
River Plan/SEIS. This announcement also indicated that the plan would
be available for viewing on the park's Web site (https://www.nps.gov/
yose/planning). Copies of the final plan will also be available at the
National Park Service headquarters in Yosemite Valley, the Yosemite
Valley Research Library, the National Park Service warehouse building
in El Portal, and at a number local and regional libraries (listed in
Chapter VI of the Final SEIS).
Decision Process: Depending upon the response from other agencies,
interested organizations, and the general public, at this time it is
anticipated that a Record of Decision would be approved not sooner than
at least 30 days have elapsed after publication by the EPA of their
filing notice for the Final Revised MRP/SEIS. Notice of the approved
decision will be posted in the Federal Register and announced in local
and regional 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 Revised Merced River Plan is the Superintendent, Yosemite
National Park.
Dated: May 18, 2005.
Jonathan B. Jarvis,
Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
[FR Doc. 05-12207 Filed 6-20-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-52-P