Final Environmental Impact Statement/General Management Plan, Olympic National Park; Clallam, Gray's Harbor, Jefferson and Mason Counties, WA; Notice of Availability, 13563-13566 [E8-5045]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 50 / Thursday, March 13, 2008 / Notices
visited area and external drivers
originating from densely populated
adjacent landscapes. The SCP
considered seven conservation targets:
Riparian Communities, Groundwater
Invertebrates, Terrace Communities,
Anadromous Fish, Upland Forest,
Tributary Stream Systems, and
Wetlands. Of these conservation targets,
only tributary stream systems hold a
‘‘Very High’’ threat status. Therefore,
promoting Best Management Practices
among neighbors of the Potomac Gorge
to improve water quality in tributary
streams is one of the priority actions in
the SCP.
To better understand and mitigate the
tributary stream threats, the Potomac
Gorge Survey will gather information
that will improve the understanding of
NPS personnel as to the behaviors of
local land owners that affect water
quality in tributary streams and the
socio-demographic characteristics that
are associated with particular behaviors.
The survey will be administered to a
stratified random sample of residents in
the Potomac Gorge watershed. The
Potomac Gorge Survey includes
questions relating to residents’ choice of
land use practices and behaviors that
affect water resources in the Gorge, and
residents’ demographic profiles,
mobility, information, attitudes, and
beliefs. Survey data will be analyzed
using statistical analysis to investigate
the responsiveness of residents’
environmental attitudes and behaviors
to changes in demographic, cultural,
and informational drivers of behavior.
This pilot project will identify priorities
for future work within the Potomac
Gorge as well as provide a generalized
application in social science issues
confronting the National Parks as a
whole. Landowner participation to
respond is voluntary.
Automated data collection: This
information will be collected primarily
via telephone surveys with an option for
those contacted to complete the survey
on the internet, if preferred. No
automated data collection will take
place.
Description of respondents:
Respondents will be among a random
sample of watershed residents stratified
by zip code.
Estimated average number of
respondents: 400 respondents.
Estimated average number of
responses: 400 responses.
Estimated average burden hours per
response: 1 minute for non-respondents
and 20 minutes for respondents.
Frequency of Response: 1 time per
respondent.
Estimated annual reporting burden:
3,433 hours.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 Mar 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
Comments are invited on: (1) The
practical utility of the information being
gathered; (2) the accuracy of the burden
hour estimate; (3) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (4)
ways to minimize the burden to
respondents, including use of
automated information collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology. Before including your
address, phone number, e-mail address,
or other personal identifying
information in your comment, you
should be aware that your entire
comment—including your personal
identifying information—may be made
publicly available at any time. While
you can ask us in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Dated: March 5, 2008.
Leonard E. Stowe,
NPS, Information Collection Clearance
Officer.
[FR Doc. E8–4880 Filed 3–12–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–52–M
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Final Environmental Impact Statement/
General Management Plan, Olympic
National Park; Clallam, Gray’s Harbor,
Jefferson and Mason Counties, WA;
Notice of Availability
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42
U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the National Park
Service (NPS) has prepared a Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the
proposed General Management Plan
(Final GMP/EIS), Olympic National
Park, Washington. The purpose of the
GMP is to provide management
direction for resource protection and
visitor use at Olympic National Park for
the next 15 to 20 years. A GMP is
needed to confirm the purpose and
significance of the park, to clearly
define resource conditions and visitor
experiences to be achieved in the park,
to provide a framework for park
managers to use when making decisions
as to how to best protect park resources
and provide for a diverse range of visitor
experiences, to ensure a foundation for
decision making in consultation with
interested stakeholders, and to serve as
the basis for more detailed management
documents. In addition to a ‘‘baseline’’
no-action alternative (Alternative A)
which would maintain current
management, the Final GMP/EIS
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13563
describes and analyzes three ‘‘action’’
alternatives. Alternative B emphasizes
cultural and natural resource protection
and natural processes would take
priority over visitor access in certain
areas of the park. Alternative C
emphasizes increased recreational and
visitor opportunities. Alternative D is
the ‘‘management preferred’’ alternative;
it is a combination of the other
alternatives, emphasizing both
protection of park resources and
improving visitor experiences. The
foreseeable environmental
consequences of all the alternatives, and
mitigation strategies, are identified and
analyzed; as documented in the Final
EIS, Alternative D is deemed to be the
‘‘environmentally preferred’’ course of
action.
Description of Alternatives: The Final
GMP/EIS includes three action
alternatives and a no-action alternative.
The no-action alternative (Alternative A)
assumes that existing programs,
facilities, staffing, and funding would
generally continue at their current
levels, and the current management
practices would continue. There would
be no zoning designated within the
park, and issues would be evaluated on
a case-by-case basis without a long
range plan or vision. The park would
continue to be managed in accordance
with existing plans and policies.
Alternative B emphasizes cultural and
natural resource protection; natural
processes would have priority over
visitor access in certain areas of the
park. In general, the park would be
managed as a large ecosystem preserve
emphasizing wilderness management
for resource conservation and
protection, with a reduced number of
facilities to support visitation. Some
roads and facilities would be moved or
closed to protect natural processes, and
visitor access and services in sensitive
areas would be reduced. Boundary
adjustments for the purposes of resource
protection would be considered
adjacent to the park in the Ozette, Lake
Crescent, Hoh, Queets, and Quinault
areas. When compared with the other
alternatives, this alternative would have
less front country acreage designated as
development, and more acreage
designated as low-use and day-use
zones. This alternative includes a river
zone and an intertidal reserve zone.
Alternative C emphasizes increased
recreational and visitor opportunities.
The natural and cultural resources are
protected through management actions
and resource education programs.
However, maintaining access to existing
facilities would be a priority, and access
would be retained to all existing front
country areas or increased by improving
E:\FR\FM\13MRN1.SGM
13MRN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
13564
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 50 / Thursday, March 13, 2008 / Notices
park roads to extend season of use. New
or expanded interpretation and
educational facilities would be
constructed. This alternative includes a
boundary adjustment in the Ozette area.
When compared with the other
alternatives, this alternative would have
increased acreages zoned as
development and day use and decreased
acreages of low-use zone areas. This
alternative would include an intertidal
reserve zone; there would be no river
zone.
Alternative D is the park’s ‘‘preferred’’
alternative. It was developed by
integrating key components of the other
alternatives, emphasizing both the
protection of park resources and
improving visitor experiences. All
management activities minimize
adverse effects on park resources to the
extent possible. Access would be
maintained to existing front country
areas, but roads might be modified or
relocated for resource protection, river
restoration, and/or to maintain
vehicular access. Visitor education and
interpretative facilities would be
improved or developed to improve
visitor opportunities and to protect park
resources. Three boundary adjustments
are proposed, which include seeking
land exchanges and partnering with
Washington Department of Natural
Resources, developing protective
strategies in coordination with the U.S.
Forest Service for its lands within the
adjusted boundaries, and acquiring
private land by willing seller only. This
alternative includes slightly more
development zone acreage in the front
country when compared with
Alternative B, and slightly less than
Alternative C. This alternative has more
day-use zone acreage than Alternative B,
and more low-use zone acreage than
Alternative C. A river zone is not
included, but the alternative does
include an intertidal reserve zone.
Changes Incorporated in the Final
EIS: The park made minor changes and
clarified aspects of the preferred
alternative as a result of public
comment; however, there were no
substantive modifications. Editorial
changes and additional explanatory text
on topics of interest were incorporated.
Other changes made to the Final GMP/
EIS as a result of public comments
included clarifying the purpose, need,
and legislative procedures for boundary
adjustments and the potential cost for
property acquisition and land
easements.
Several public comments related to
the management of cultural resources in
wilderness. The wilderness and cultural
resources sections have been updated
based on changes in NPS Management
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 Mar 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
Policies 2006. The public also expressed
concerns related to existing access rights
to private property and the effects the
alternatives would have on the
socioeconomic resources in the region.
Information on private property access
rights has been included.
The socioeconomic information in the
affected environment and
environmental consequences section
has been updated based on the best
available information and data provided
by the public during the Draft EIS
comment period.
There were questions from the public
related to management and wilderness
zoning. Management zones have been
rewritten to clarify front country zone
descriptions and stock use. Wilderness
zoning definitions remain within the
plan but the exact on-the-ground
designation has been removed from the
plan and will be delineated through a
subsequent wilderness management
plan process (which will include ample
opportunity for public involvement and
review). Area Indian tribes provided
comments and additional information
for the Final EIS. Laws and policies
governing use by Native Americans of
park resources have been added to
‘‘Laws, Regulations, Servicewide
Mandates and Policies’’ and desired
conditions and strategies under
‘‘Parkwide Policies and Servicewide
Mandates’’ have been updated or
clarified for several topics. In addition,
visitation information has been updated
with the most up-to-date statistics.
Responses to comments are provided in
the Final GMP/EIS.
In addition to these minor changes
and clarifications, several public
comments resulted in minor
modifications to the final preferred
alternative (Alternative D). Instituting an
overnight permit system for parking at
Swan Bay was suggested so that lake
users, including private property
owners, could park overnight at that
location. Keeping Rayonier Landing
open for day use only was also
proposed. Both of these ideas were
included in the final preferred
alternative. Some agencies, tribes, and
communities requested increased
partnering to improve visitor education
and opportunities and collaborative
cultural and natural resources
management, and this is incorporated.
There were also suggestions to
integrate components of Alternatives A,
B, and C into the final preferred
alternative. Many commenters felt that
Alternative A should be selected as no
change was necessary to meet park
management objectives. However,
continuing the current management
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
would not fulfill the plan objectives and
expressed purpose and need.
The park received numerous
comments to expand the proposed
boundary adjustment for the final
preferred alternative to more closely
match that included in Alternative B.
This was considered but not
incorporated in the final preferred
alternative because the park determined
that other options could be used to
promote resource protection (such as
working with partners and employing
cooperative management strategies
outside the park boundaries). The park
also received multiple requests to
integrate wild and scenic river studies
for the 12 eligible rivers into the plan,
and to institute a river zone as included
in Alternative B. During development of
the proposed GMP, the park reviewed
the existing eligibility studies and
determined that formal suitability
studies related to wild and scenic rivers
designation would be conducted in a
separate planning process after the GMP
is completed due to the high number of
rivers involved and the detail needed
for these studies. The park also included
protective measures for rivers and
floodplains in Alternative D; therefore a
formal river zone designation is not
needed to meet park desired conditions.
The park also received
recommendations to include
improvements to park roads and
facilities similar to those explored under
Alternative C, including paving existing
gravel roads, expanding existing
facilities and parking lots, and
increasing visitor services. These
suggestions were rejected in the final
preferred alternative because they are
not needed to meet park purpose, needs,
and objectives. Many suggestions
provided were too detailed to be
included in the final proposed plan (e.g.
interpretive exhibits, wilderness
management practices) and are recorded
for consideration in future
implementation plans.
Text in the final preferred alternative
has been clarified to emphasize that any
property acquisition would be by
exchange, through easements, or by
willing seller only; updated information
has been provided to clarify the need for
boundary expansions. Boundary
adjustments would not occur until
property is acquired through the willing
seller process and accomplished
pursuant to the legislative process. The
preferred alternative has been modified
slightly based on public concerns—the
potential area of exchange for mineral
rights has been changed from lands
solely in the Ozette watershed to lands
within the State of Washington. The
NPS would work with the State of
E:\FR\FM\13MRN1.SGM
13MRN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 50 / Thursday, March 13, 2008 / Notices
Washington to identify priority areas for
exchange.
Public Engagement: The park’s Notice
of Intent initiating the conservation
planning and environmental impact
analysis\GMP planning process was
published in the Federal Register on
June 4, 2001. Public engagement and
information measures have included
public meetings, presentations and
meetings, newsletter and postcard
mailings, local and regional press
releases, and Web site postings. The
official public scoping process began in
June 2001 when a scoping newsletter
was distributed to approximately 800
people on the park’s mailing list. During
September and October 2001, public
scoping meetings were held in several
locations around the Olympic Peninsula
and in the region. More than 500
comments were received during the
scoping process. The majority of
comments fell into the following
categories: resource protection,
wilderness management, visitor use and
experience, access to park areas, and
partnerships. Due consideration of these
comments aided in defining the issues
to be considered in developing the draft
plan.
In January 2002, a newsletter was
distributed to summarize the planning
issues and concerns brought forward
during scoping, and to announce five
workshops to be held in late January to
seek public participation in developing
alternatives. This was followed by the
releases of a preliminary alternatives
newsletter (distributed in May 2003)
and a park update newsletter
(distributed November 2004) to the
project mailing list, which had reached
approximately 1,200 individuals,
agencies, area tribes, and organizations.
In March 2006 an R.S.V.P. card with a
postage paid response was sent to those
on the mailing list to announce the
upcoming release of the draft plan and
to determine who on the mailing list
wanted a copy of the plan.
Approximately 340 cards were returned
with requests for a copy of the plan or
for notification of its release.
The EPA’s notice of filing of the draft
EIS was published in the Federal
Register on June 16, 2006, and the
document was available for extended
public review for 105 days through
September 30, 2006, during which time
the NPS distributed approximately 900
copies. The park’s Notice of Availability
was published in the Federal Register
on July 14, 2006. The document was
available at park offices, visitor centers
and at area libraries, and it was posted
on the Internet. Printed and CD–ROM
copies were sent upon request, and also
distributed to agencies, government
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 Mar 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
representatives, area tribes,
organizations, and interested
individuals.
Detailed information announcing the
opportunity for public review and the
locations, times and dates for public
workshops was published in several
area newspapers, including The
Peninsula Daily News, Forks Forum,
The Daily World, The Seattle Times,
Port Townsend and Jefferson County
Leader, and the Kitsap Sun. Public
workshops were conducted in Port
Townsend, Port Angeles, Sequim, Forks,
Sekiu-Clallam Bay, Amanda Park,
Shelton, Silverdale, and Seattle. Over
250 people attended the workshops.
The NPS received approximately 500
comments on the Draft EIS by mail, fax,
hand delivery, oral transcript, and via
the Internet. In addition, approximately
637 additional individuals responded
by using one of seven different form
letters and approximately 827
individuals signed one of three
petitions. The following topics received
the most comment: access to park
facilities, boundary adjustments,
management zoning, Olympic Hot
Springs restoration, Ozette Lake,
partnerships, rivers and floodplains,
socioeconomic resources, tribal treaty
rights and trust resources, protection of
ethnographic resources, employment
opportunities, government-togovernment consultation, partnerships,
and how to improve relationships with
the park, visitor use, stock use
opportunities, wilderness management,
and cultural resources management.
Some commenters cited concerns
related to accessibility, air quality, air
tours and overflights, park budget and
budget priorities, climate change, costs
of implementing the preferred
alternative, education and outreach,
facilities management, fisheries
resources, geologic processes, habitat,
night sky, soundscape management,
topics dismissed (e.g. environmental
justice, unique farmlands), vegetation,
water resources, wild and scenic river
studies, and wildlife management
(native, extirpated, and non-native).
Throughout the planning process, the
NPS has consulted with various tribal,
federal, state, and local government
agencies, including the U.S. Forest
Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Western Washington Office and the
Washington Islands National Wildlife
Refuge), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (Fisheries
Office and Olympic Coast National
Marine Sanctuary), Federal Highways
Administration, Washington State
Historic Preservation Office, the
Advisory Council for Historic
Preservation, Washington State
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13565
Department of Natural Resources,
Washington State Department of
Transportation, and local, city, and
county officials and agencies.
Consultations and informational
meetings were also held with area tribal
governments. Tribal consultation
meetings were held with all eight tribes
in 2001, and follow-up meetings were
held in 2004 and 2005 to provide an
update on the status of the plan. During
the public review period, in 2006,
meetings were offered to all eight tribes,
and six tribes requested meetings. Six
tribes provided a wide range of
comments on the draft plan. Several
tribes brought forward issues that need
to be addressed outside the scope of the
plan, such as jurisdiction, trust
resources, treaty rights, gathering, and
land issues. Tribes were also concerned
about how boundary adjustments would
affect their tribal treaty rights. The park
integrated many tribal comments and
suggested revisions into the final plan.
At the request of the tribes, a meeting
was held July 20, 2007 to review the
tribal comments and the park responses
and changes to the final plan. Seven of
the eight tribes attended the meeting,
plus three tribes requested individual
meetings after the group session. While
not all issues were addressed in the
final plan, many issues were resolved
and/or clarified.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Final
GMP/EIS is now available, and
interested persons and organizations
wishing to obtain the Final GMP/EIS
may retrieve the document online at
https://parkplanning.nps.gov/olym. The
document is also available at these
locations: Office of the Superintendent,
Olympic National Park, 600 East Park
Avenue, Port Angeles, Washington,
98362 (telephone requests taken at 360–
565–3004); the Olympic National Park
Visitor Center at Port Angeles; Olympic
National Park-National Forest
Information Station in Forks; and the
Hoh Rain Forest Visitor Center. The
document will also be available for
inspection at the following area
libraries: Daniel J. Evans Library,
Evergreen State College; Kitsap Regional
Library, Bremerton branch; North
Olympic Library System at Clallam Bay,
Forks, Port Angeles, and Sequim;
Peninsula College Library; Port
Townsend Public Library and Quilcene
branch; Seattle Public Library; Tacoma
Public Library; Timberland Regional
Library at Aberdeen, Amanda Park,
Hoodsport, and Hoquiam; University of
Washington Library; William G. Reed
Public Library; and at the Wilson
Library, Western Washington
University.
E:\FR\FM\13MRN1.SGM
13MRN1
13566
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 50 / Thursday, March 13, 2008 / Notices
Decision Process: The NPS will
execute a Record of Decision (ROD) no
sooner than 30 days following
publication by the Environmental
Protection Agency of its notice of filing
of the Final Environmental Impact
Statement in the Federal Register. As a
delegated EIS the official responsible for
final approval of the General
Management Plan is the Regional
Director; subsequently the official
responsible for implementing the new
plan would be the Superintendent,
Olympic National Park.
Dated: March 5, 2008.
Patricia L. Neubacher,
Acting Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
[FR Doc. E8–5045 Filed 3–12–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–KY–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–597]
In the Matter of Certain Bassinet
Products; Notice of a Commission
Determination Not To Review an Initial
Determination Terminating the
Investigation on the Basis of a
Consent Order Stipulation and
Consent Order; Issuance of Consent
Order
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined not to
review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’)
(Order No. 25) of the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) in the
above-captioned investigation
terminating the investigation on the
basis of a consent order stipulation and
consent order.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric
Frahm, Office of the General Counsel,
U.S. International Trade Commission,
500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC
20436, telephone (202) 205–3107.
Copies of non-confidential documents
filed in connection with this
investigation are or will be available for
inspection during official business
hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the
Office of the Secretary, U.S.
International Trade Commission, 500 E
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436,
telephone (202) 205–2000. General
information concerning the Commission
may also be obtained by accessing its
Internet server at https://www.usitc.gov.
The public record for this investigation
may be viewed on the Commission’s
electronic docket (EDIS) at https://
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 Mar 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired
persons are advised that information on
this matter can be obtained by
contacting the Commission’s TDD
terminal on (202) 205–1810.
The
Commission instituted this investigation
on March 14, 2007, based on a
complaint filed by Arm’s Reach
Concepts, Inc., of Malibu, California
(‘‘Arm’s Reach’’). 72 Federal Register
11902 (Mar. 14, 2007). The complaint
alleged violations of section 337 in the
importation into the United States, the
sale for importation, and the sale within
the United States after importation of
certain bassinet products by reason of
infringement of one or more of claims
1–2, 5, 10–14, 16, and 18–19 of U.S.
Patent No. 6,931,677 and claims 1–2, 10,
15–16, 24, 29–31, and 48–49 of U.S.
Patent No. Re. 39,136. The complaint
further alleged that an industry in the
United States exists as required by
subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The
complainant requested that the
Commission issue a limited exclusion
order and a cease and desist order. The
Commission named Simplicity, Inc., of
Reading, Pennsylvania (‘‘Simplicity’’),
as the sole respondent.
On January 29, 2008, Arm’s Reach
and Simplicity filed a joint motion
pursuant to Commission Rule 210.21(c)
to terminate the investigation as to
Simplicity on the basis of a consent
order stipulation and consent order. The
Commission investigative attorney
supported the motion.
On February 15, 2008, the ALJ issued
an ID (Order No. 25) granting the
parties’ motion, terminating the
investigation as to Simplicity, and
terminating the investigation in its
entirety on the basis of a consent order
stipulation and consent order. No
petitions for review of the ID were filed,
and the Commission has determined not
to review the ID.
This action is taken under the
authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337,
and Commission rules 210.21, 210.42,
19 CFR 210.21, 210.42.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
By order of the Commission.
Issued: March 7, 2008.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8–4955 Filed 3–12–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337–TA–625]
In the Matter of Certain Self-Cleaning
Litter Boxes and Components Thereof;
Notice of Commission Determination
Not To Review an Initial Determination
Granting Complainant’s Motion To
Amend the Complaint and Notice of
Investigation
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined not to
review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’)
(Order No. 5) of the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’)
granting a motion to amend the
complaint and notice of investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202–
205–3152. Copies of the ID and all other
nonconfidential documents filed in
connection with this investigation are or
will be available for inspection during
official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15
p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S.
International Trade Commission, 500 E
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436,
telephone 202–205–2000. Hearingimpaired persons are advised that
information on this matter can be
obtained by contacting the
Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–
205–1810. General information
concerning the Commission may also be
obtained by accessing its Internet server
(https://www.usitc.gov). The public
record for this investigation may be
viewed on the Commission’s electronic
docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
December 28, 2007, the Commission
instituted an investigation under section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C.
1337, based on a complaint filed by
Applica Incorporated and Applica
Consumer Products, Inc., both of
Miramar, Florida; and Waters Research
Company of West Dundee, Illinois,
alleging a violation of section 337 in the
importation, sale for importation, and
sale within the United States after
importation of certain self-cleaning litter
boxes and components thereof by reason
of infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent No. RE36,847. 72 Federal
Register 73884 (Dec. 28, 2007). The
complainants named Lucky Litter,
L.L.C. of Arlington, Texas and OurPet’s
E:\FR\FM\13MRN1.SGM
13MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 50 (Thursday, March 13, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13563-13566]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-5045]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Final Environmental Impact Statement/General Management Plan,
Olympic National Park; Clallam, Gray's Harbor, Jefferson and Mason
Counties, WA; Notice of Availability
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42
U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the National Park Service (NPS) has prepared a Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed General Management Plan
(Final GMP/EIS), Olympic National Park, Washington. The purpose of the
GMP is to provide management direction for resource protection and
visitor use at Olympic National Park for the next 15 to 20 years. A GMP
is needed to confirm the purpose and significance of the park, to
clearly define resource conditions and visitor experiences to be
achieved in the park, to provide a framework for park managers to use
when making decisions as to how to best protect park resources and
provide for a diverse range of visitor experiences, to ensure a
foundation for decision making in consultation with interested
stakeholders, and to serve as the basis for more detailed management
documents. In addition to a ``baseline'' no-action alternative
(Alternative A) which would maintain current management, the Final GMP/
EIS describes and analyzes three ``action'' alternatives. Alternative B
emphasizes cultural and natural resource protection and natural
processes would take priority over visitor access in certain areas of
the park. Alternative C emphasizes increased recreational and visitor
opportunities. Alternative D is the ``management preferred''
alternative; it is a combination of the other alternatives, emphasizing
both protection of park resources and improving visitor experiences.
The foreseeable environmental consequences of all the alternatives, and
mitigation strategies, are identified and analyzed; as documented in
the Final EIS, Alternative D is deemed to be the ``environmentally
preferred'' course of action.
Description of Alternatives: The Final GMP/EIS includes three
action alternatives and a no-action alternative. The no-action
alternative (Alternative A) assumes that existing programs, facilities,
staffing, and funding would generally continue at their current levels,
and the current management practices would continue. There would be no
zoning designated within the park, and issues would be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis without a long range plan or vision. The park would
continue to be managed in accordance with existing plans and policies.
Alternative B emphasizes cultural and natural resource protection;
natural processes would have priority over visitor access in certain
areas of the park. In general, the park would be managed as a large
ecosystem preserve emphasizing wilderness management for resource
conservation and protection, with a reduced number of facilities to
support visitation. Some roads and facilities would be moved or closed
to protect natural processes, and visitor access and services in
sensitive areas would be reduced. Boundary adjustments for the purposes
of resource protection would be considered adjacent to the park in the
Ozette, Lake Crescent, Hoh, Queets, and Quinault areas. When compared
with the other alternatives, this alternative would have less front
country acreage designated as development, and more acreage designated
as low-use and day-use zones. This alternative includes a river zone
and an intertidal reserve zone.
Alternative C emphasizes increased recreational and visitor
opportunities. The natural and cultural resources are protected through
management actions and resource education programs. However,
maintaining access to existing facilities would be a priority, and
access would be retained to all existing front country areas or
increased by improving
[[Page 13564]]
park roads to extend season of use. New or expanded interpretation and
educational facilities would be constructed. This alternative includes
a boundary adjustment in the Ozette area. When compared with the other
alternatives, this alternative would have increased acreages zoned as
development and day use and decreased acreages of low-use zone areas.
This alternative would include an intertidal reserve zone; there would
be no river zone.
Alternative D is the park's ``preferred'' alternative. It was
developed by integrating key components of the other alternatives,
emphasizing both the protection of park resources and improving visitor
experiences. All management activities minimize adverse effects on park
resources to the extent possible. Access would be maintained to
existing front country areas, but roads might be modified or relocated
for resource protection, river restoration, and/or to maintain
vehicular access. Visitor education and interpretative facilities would
be improved or developed to improve visitor opportunities and to
protect park resources. Three boundary adjustments are proposed, which
include seeking land exchanges and partnering with Washington
Department of Natural Resources, developing protective strategies in
coordination with the U.S. Forest Service for its lands within the
adjusted boundaries, and acquiring private land by willing seller only.
This alternative includes slightly more development zone acreage in the
front country when compared with Alternative B, and slightly less than
Alternative C. This alternative has more day-use zone acreage than
Alternative B, and more low-use zone acreage than Alternative C. A
river zone is not included, but the alternative does include an
intertidal reserve zone.
Changes Incorporated in the Final EIS: The park made minor changes
and clarified aspects of the preferred alternative as a result of
public comment; however, there were no substantive modifications.
Editorial changes and additional explanatory text on topics of interest
were incorporated. Other changes made to the Final GMP/EIS as a result
of public comments included clarifying the purpose, need, and
legislative procedures for boundary adjustments and the potential cost
for property acquisition and land easements.
Several public comments related to the management of cultural
resources in wilderness. The wilderness and cultural resources sections
have been updated based on changes in NPS Management Policies 2006. The
public also expressed concerns related to existing access rights to
private property and the effects the alternatives would have on the
socioeconomic resources in the region. Information on private property
access rights has been included.
The socioeconomic information in the affected environment and
environmental consequences section has been updated based on the best
available information and data provided by the public during the Draft
EIS comment period.
There were questions from the public related to management and
wilderness zoning. Management zones have been rewritten to clarify
front country zone descriptions and stock use. Wilderness zoning
definitions remain within the plan but the exact on-the-ground
designation has been removed from the plan and will be delineated
through a subsequent wilderness management plan process (which will
include ample opportunity for public involvement and review). Area
Indian tribes provided comments and additional information for the
Final EIS. Laws and policies governing use by Native Americans of park
resources have been added to ``Laws, Regulations, Servicewide Mandates
and Policies'' and desired conditions and strategies under ``Parkwide
Policies and Servicewide Mandates'' have been updated or clarified for
several topics. In addition, visitation information has been updated
with the most up-to-date statistics. Responses to comments are provided
in the Final GMP/EIS.
In addition to these minor changes and clarifications, several
public comments resulted in minor modifications to the final preferred
alternative (Alternative D). Instituting an overnight permit system for
parking at Swan Bay was suggested so that lake users, including private
property owners, could park overnight at that location. Keeping
Rayonier Landing open for day use only was also proposed. Both of these
ideas were included in the final preferred alternative. Some agencies,
tribes, and communities requested increased partnering to improve
visitor education and opportunities and collaborative cultural and
natural resources management, and this is incorporated.
There were also suggestions to integrate components of Alternatives
A, B, and C into the final preferred alternative. Many commenters felt
that Alternative A should be selected as no change was necessary to
meet park management objectives. However, continuing the current
management would not fulfill the plan objectives and expressed purpose
and need.
The park received numerous comments to expand the proposed boundary
adjustment for the final preferred alternative to more closely match
that included in Alternative B. This was considered but not
incorporated in the final preferred alternative because the park
determined that other options could be used to promote resource
protection (such as working with partners and employing cooperative
management strategies outside the park boundaries). The park also
received multiple requests to integrate wild and scenic river studies
for the 12 eligible rivers into the plan, and to institute a river zone
as included in Alternative B. During development of the proposed GMP,
the park reviewed the existing eligibility studies and determined that
formal suitability studies related to wild and scenic rivers
designation would be conducted in a separate planning process after the
GMP is completed due to the high number of rivers involved and the
detail needed for these studies. The park also included protective
measures for rivers and floodplains in Alternative D; therefore a
formal river zone designation is not needed to meet park desired
conditions. The park also received recommendations to include
improvements to park roads and facilities similar to those explored
under Alternative C, including paving existing gravel roads, expanding
existing facilities and parking lots, and increasing visitor services.
These suggestions were rejected in the final preferred alternative
because they are not needed to meet park purpose, needs, and
objectives. Many suggestions provided were too detailed to be included
in the final proposed plan (e.g. interpretive exhibits, wilderness
management practices) and are recorded for consideration in future
implementation plans.
Text in the final preferred alternative has been clarified to
emphasize that any property acquisition would be by exchange, through
easements, or by willing seller only; updated information has been
provided to clarify the need for boundary expansions. Boundary
adjustments would not occur until property is acquired through the
willing seller process and accomplished pursuant to the legislative
process. The preferred alternative has been modified slightly based on
public concerns--the potential area of exchange for mineral rights has
been changed from lands solely in the Ozette watershed to lands within
the State of Washington. The NPS would work with the State of
[[Page 13565]]
Washington to identify priority areas for exchange.
Public Engagement: The park's Notice of Intent initiating the
conservation planning and environmental impact
analysis[bs]GMP planning process was published in the
Federal Register on June 4, 2001. Public engagement and information
measures have included public meetings, presentations and meetings,
newsletter and postcard mailings, local and regional press releases,
and Web site postings. The official public scoping process began in
June 2001 when a scoping newsletter was distributed to approximately
800 people on the park's mailing list. During September and October
2001, public scoping meetings were held in several locations around the
Olympic Peninsula and in the region. More than 500 comments were
received during the scoping process. The majority of comments fell into
the following categories: resource protection, wilderness management,
visitor use and experience, access to park areas, and partnerships. Due
consideration of these comments aided in defining the issues to be
considered in developing the draft plan.
In January 2002, a newsletter was distributed to summarize the
planning issues and concerns brought forward during scoping, and to
announce five workshops to be held in late January to seek public
participation in developing alternatives. This was followed by the
releases of a preliminary alternatives newsletter (distributed in May
2003) and a park update newsletter (distributed November 2004) to the
project mailing list, which had reached approximately 1,200
individuals, agencies, area tribes, and organizations. In March 2006 an
R.S.V.P. card with a postage paid response was sent to those on the
mailing list to announce the upcoming release of the draft plan and to
determine who on the mailing list wanted a copy of the plan.
Approximately 340 cards were returned with requests for a copy of the
plan or for notification of its release.
The EPA's notice of filing of the draft EIS was published in the
Federal Register on June 16, 2006, and the document was available for
extended public review for 105 days through September 30, 2006, during
which time the NPS distributed approximately 900 copies. The park's
Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register on July
14, 2006. The document was available at park offices, visitor centers
and at area libraries, and it was posted on the Internet. Printed and
CD-ROM copies were sent upon request, and also distributed to agencies,
government representatives, area tribes, organizations, and interested
individuals.
Detailed information announcing the opportunity for public review
and the locations, times and dates for public workshops was published
in several area newspapers, including The Peninsula Daily News, Forks
Forum, The Daily World, The Seattle Times, Port Townsend and Jefferson
County Leader, and the Kitsap Sun. Public workshops were conducted in
Port Townsend, Port Angeles, Sequim, Forks, Sekiu-Clallam Bay, Amanda
Park, Shelton, Silverdale, and Seattle. Over 250 people attended the
workshops.
The NPS received approximately 500 comments on the Draft EIS by
mail, fax, hand delivery, oral transcript, and via the Internet. In
addition, approximately 637 additional individuals responded by using
one of seven different form letters and approximately 827 individuals
signed one of three petitions. The following topics received the most
comment: access to park facilities, boundary adjustments, management
zoning, Olympic Hot Springs restoration, Ozette Lake, partnerships,
rivers and floodplains, socioeconomic resources, tribal treaty rights
and trust resources, protection of ethnographic resources, employment
opportunities, government-to-government consultation, partnerships, and
how to improve relationships with the park, visitor use, stock use
opportunities, wilderness management, and cultural resources
management. Some commenters cited concerns related to accessibility,
air quality, air tours and overflights, park budget and budget
priorities, climate change, costs of implementing the preferred
alternative, education and outreach, facilities management, fisheries
resources, geologic processes, habitat, night sky, soundscape
management, topics dismissed (e.g. environmental justice, unique
farmlands), vegetation, water resources, wild and scenic river studies,
and wildlife management (native, extirpated, and non-native).
Throughout the planning process, the NPS has consulted with various
tribal, federal, state, and local government agencies, including the
U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Western Washington
Office and the Washington Islands National Wildlife Refuge), National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Fisheries Office and Olympic
Coast National Marine Sanctuary), Federal Highways Administration,
Washington State Historic Preservation Office, the Advisory Council for
Historic Preservation, Washington State Department of Natural
Resources, Washington State Department of Transportation, and local,
city, and county officials and agencies.
Consultations and informational meetings were also held with area
tribal governments. Tribal consultation meetings were held with all
eight tribes in 2001, and follow-up meetings were held in 2004 and 2005
to provide an update on the status of the plan. During the public
review period, in 2006, meetings were offered to all eight tribes, and
six tribes requested meetings. Six tribes provided a wide range of
comments on the draft plan. Several tribes brought forward issues that
need to be addressed outside the scope of the plan, such as
jurisdiction, trust resources, treaty rights, gathering, and land
issues. Tribes were also concerned about how boundary adjustments would
affect their tribal treaty rights. The park integrated many tribal
comments and suggested revisions into the final plan. At the request of
the tribes, a meeting was held July 20, 2007 to review the tribal
comments and the park responses and changes to the final plan. Seven of
the eight tribes attended the meeting, plus three tribes requested
individual meetings after the group session. While not all issues were
addressed in the final plan, many issues were resolved and/or
clarified.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Final GMP/EIS is now available, and
interested persons and organizations wishing to obtain the Final GMP/
EIS may retrieve the document online at https://parkplanning.nps.gov/
olym. The document is also available at these locations: Office of the
Superintendent, Olympic National Park, 600 East Park Avenue, Port
Angeles, Washington, 98362 (telephone requests taken at 360-565-3004);
the Olympic National Park Visitor Center at Port Angeles; Olympic
National Park-National Forest Information Station in Forks; and the Hoh
Rain Forest Visitor Center. The document will also be available for
inspection at the following area libraries: Daniel J. Evans Library,
Evergreen State College; Kitsap Regional Library, Bremerton branch;
North Olympic Library System at Clallam Bay, Forks, Port Angeles, and
Sequim; Peninsula College Library; Port Townsend Public Library and
Quilcene branch; Seattle Public Library; Tacoma Public Library;
Timberland Regional Library at Aberdeen, Amanda Park, Hoodsport, and
Hoquiam; University of Washington Library; William G. Reed Public
Library; and at the Wilson Library, Western Washington University.
[[Page 13566]]
Decision Process: The NPS will execute a Record of Decision (ROD)
no sooner than 30 days following publication by the Environmental
Protection Agency of its notice of filing of the Final Environmental
Impact Statement in the Federal Register. As a delegated EIS the
official responsible for final approval of the General Management Plan
is the Regional Director; subsequently the official responsible for
implementing the new plan would be the Superintendent, Olympic National
Park.
Dated: March 5, 2008.
Patricia L. Neubacher,
Acting Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
[FR Doc. E8-5045 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-KY-P
