Final Environmental Impact Statement/General Management Plan, Olympic National Park; Clallam, Gray's Harbor, Jefferson and Mason Counties, WA; Notice of Availability
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 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 concernsthe 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 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.
Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan: North Cascades National Park Service Complex, Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, Chelan County, WA; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Enviornmental Impact Statement
In accord with Sec. 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the National Park Service (in cooperation with the Western Federal Lands Division of Federal Highway Administration) is undertaking a conservation planning and environmental impact analysis process to determine future management of public and inter-mingled private lands in the lower Stehekin River Valley within Lake Chelan National Recreation Area. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared for a Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan, in conjunction with revising the current Land Protection Plan, which will guide land protection and Stehekin River management within Lake Chelan NRA. Background: The National Park Service (NPS) collectively manages North Cascades National Park, Lake Chelan NRA, and Ross Lake National Recreation Area as North Cascades National Park Service Complex (North Cascades). The Stehekin Valley is a glacial valley that begins at the crest of Cascade Pass within North Cascades National Park and ends where the river flows into Lake Chelan, the third deepest natural lake in the United States. Lake Chelan is a 55-mile-long, 1,500-foot-deep lake with exceptionally steep valley walls reminiscent of a fjord. The natural level of the lake was raised 21 feet by a hydroelectric/flood-control dam in the 1920s. Approximately the upper five miles of Lake Chelan and the lower nine miles of the Stehekin River are within Lake Chelan NRA. Geographically this remote area is a long, narrow corridor, within which numerous private homes and public facilities are located. People have been living in the Stehekin area since the valley was homesteaded in the mid-1800s. Approximately 100 people live in the Stehekin Community year-round, while many others visit periodically, most in summer. In addition, the Stehekin area draws visitors from around the world to camp, fish, swim, raft, kayak, bicycle, hike and engage in other activities. Some stay for only a few hours (between ferry landings), while some stay for days or weeks hosted by the park and the Stehekin Community. Prior to the late 20th century, like most rivers on the east slope of the Cascade Range, the Stehekin River had flooded primarily due to spring snowmelt. Since the 1960s, however, flooding appears to have become more likely during fall rain-on-snow events, which rise quickly and occur from mid-October through December. The unprecedented occurrence of several 100-year fall floods and one 500-year flood since 1995 has substantially altered the river channel and floodplain, resulting in channel migration, erosion of river banks, and flooding in some areas during even relatively low flood conditions. As a result, private landowners and NPS facilities in the lower Valley have repeately been threatened or damaged by recent flooding. Since the 1960s, the number of river channelization and bank stabilization structures has increased to some 1.5 miles at 41 sites. Purpose and Need: The three largest recorded floods on the Stehekin River have occurred within the past 12 yearsin 1995, 2003, and 2006. Prior to this, the last large flood of similar magnitude occurred in 1948. Because of ongoing impacts to federal lands and private property from the increased magnitude and frequency of flooding, sustainable management strategies and actions are needed to fulfill the intent of the 1995 Lake Chelan NRA General Management Plan (GMP) to allow for natural processes associated with the Stehekin River to occur, to maintain park facilities (including the road system, nearby campgrounds, and administrative areas), and to help ensure the sustainability of visitor services provided by the Stehekin community. Some of these management strategies and actions were identified by the Lake Chelan GMP. Among other actions, the GMP called for the relocation of park facilities out of the floodplain. The GMP and accompanying 1995 Lake Chelan Land Protection Plan (LPP) also called for the continued purchase and/or exchange of private lands within the floodplain. Although tiered to the GMP, this Stehekin River Corridor Impementation Plan would provide more detailed management guidance. As a result, this implementation plan will identify additional sustainable management strategies and actions related to or clarified from the Lake Chelan GMP and will review and refine existing management strategies and actions based on continuing research applicable to river management practices. This conservation planning and environmental impact analysis process is also intended to update the LPP. Changes in the origin, magnitude, and frequency of floods have led to a shift in floodplain boundaries, and a recurring threat to public and private facilities. It is possible that the Stehekin River system may be evolving from a spring snowmelt dominated system to one dominated by bigger, more frequent fall rain-on-snow floods. Because of channel changes associated with the three most recent large floods, smaller floods now inundate areas that were not within the 100-year floodplain prior to 1995. Other areas that were within the floodplain have now become part of the active river channel. These changing hydrological conditions and the rapid accumulation of large woody debris and flood-deposited sediment along the Stehekin River have led to a landscape that requires management changes not envisioned by previous plans or treated holistically in actions on federal lands or private property to date. This implementation plan will identify the most effective and sustainable strategies and actions for future management of the Stehekin River corridor based upon the laws, regulations and policies that guide the administration of NPS lands. Preliminary Issues: NPS personnel, interagency staff, and area residents have begun to internally evaluate the state of knowledge about the Stehekin River and to review past management actions to identify a variety of preliminary issues and potential future management actions. The following issues and actions constitute a starting point for engaging the public in the conservation planning process: Comprehensive analysis of the sustainability of public and administrative roads within the Lower Stehekin Valley: Because of channel changes associated with the three most recent large floods, public and administrative roads in several locations now become inundated during smaller flood events and bank erosion threatens road networks at additional sites, cutting off access. There is a need for a comprehensive analysis of what steps would be needed to maintain the public and administrative road system, including identifying possible reroute locations out of the floodplain and the associated environmental effect. The analysis of any reroutes will need to include potential effects on federal or state listed species. Possible relocation or modification of recreational and administrative facilities within the Lower Stehekin Valley: Changes in the river have caused significant shifts in floodplain boundaries for the 100-year flood. Development areas which did not flood before 2003 now flood frequently, placing some recreational and administrative sites and facilities in the Lower Stehekin Valley at risk. Among the affected facilities are the group campsites at Harlequin Campground and several formerly private cabins that have been destroyed by flooding, yet remain as dilapidated structures or debris piles along the river, diminishing scenic qualities. Updating the Lake Chelan Land Protection Plan: The Land Protection Plan was designed in large part to protect the river corridor from development. Since the Land Protection Plan was approved in 1995, the NPS has exchanged several parcels of land. An update is needed to determine how previous land protection priorities would be modified by new information associated with preliminary changes to floodplain mapping and by lands acquired since the plan was developed. The update would likely include refining criteria used to evaluate land purchases and exchanges and acquisition priorities. Providing guidance for future river bank and flood protection measures in the Lower Stehekin Valley, including management of large, woody debris and restoration of riparian areas: Despite erosion and flood protection efforts by the NPS and private landowners, bank erosion continues to threaten public and private property. Channel changes associated with the floods have placed more pressure on some sites, while decreasing erosion rates at others. As certain channel reaches fill with gravel, large logjams have formed at side channel openings. Large wood affects flooding issues and recreational use of the river. Future actions if inappropriate could impact federal and state listed species or/and increase the spread of non-native plans. While recent changes in flooding and erosion are occurring throughout the lower Stehekin River Valley, two key points in the valley that have undergone major changes are the river mouth and McGregor Meadows: At the valley mouth, the changing level of Lake Chelan influences the gradient and velocity of the river as far as a \1/4\ mile upstream. The slowing of the river in turn triggers deposition of sediment and large woody debris. At McGregor Meadows, the valley widens three-fold, triggering a loss in river gradient, the deposition of massive amounts of gravel, and the accumulation of large log jams. These changes in the river system lead to impacts to roads, visitor facilities, and private property. Response has been on an event-by-event basis. The resulting outcomes as well as public understanding gained over the last 10 years underscores the need for developing comprehensive, sustainable guidance for future bank erosion and flood protection measures, including management of large, woody debris and restoration of riparian areas. NPS personnel, interagency staff, and Stehekin landowners have begun to identify preliminary components of a comprehensive implementation plan. Possible management actions may include combinations of the following (or other feasible actions as may be identified by the public during the scoping phase): Continue current management practices, such as reacting to periodic flooding by installing bank erosion protection devices or relocating the Stehekin Valley Road on a case-by-case basis; considering requests from private landowners regarding appropriate actions to take so as to avoid consequences of flooding, including elevating their homes; responding to private property owners as they seek permission to take action on NPS land to protect adjacent private property; continue to evaluate the suitability of lands for exchange as requests for exchanges are made or as the NPS acquires new land; continue research to determine the efficacy of long-term bank stabilization (erosion protection) measures. In addition to maintaining some current management activities, new practices which may be evaluated include: Use new floodplain mapping to identify new threats to private and public structures and to identify what lands can be managed sustainably under existing conditions (with structures or facilities); Update land exchange criteria/priorities to reinvigorate land exchange process; Analyze the amount and movement of large woody debris to determine if management changes are needed (potentially refining GMP direction to allow for limited manipulation of large woody debris in an effort to protect certain areas from large flood damage); Relocate parts of private and public roads, campgrounds, or campsites from the floodplain; Work with landowners to remove private facilities from the floodplain; Remove derelict structures, debris piles, or non-native plants from floodplain; Encourage moving or reconstructing private homes outside of the floodplain; Restore native riparian edge near Buckner Orchard to slow erosion rate; and Accept some facilities in floodplain. Scoping Process: As a key step in the overall conservation planning and environmental impact analysis process necessary for achieving the goal of partnering to implement coordinated Stehekin River management, the NPS is seeking public comments and relevant information to guide the preparation of a Draft EIS. The objectives of the public scoping phase include: (1) Invite participation from federal, tribal, state, local governments and other interested parties; (2) Inform all interested parties about the scope of the problem and the need to find solutions; (3) Identify a preliminary range of management alternatives (in addition to a no-action alternative that will be used as a baseline of existing conditions from which to evaluate proposed changes in management); (4) Identify relevant natural and cultural resources, recreational uses, socioeconomic and other issues which warrant detailed environmental impact analysis, and eliminate issues or topics which do not require analysis; (5) Identify potential environmental consequences and suitable mitigation strategies. Any parties wishing to express concerns about management issues or provide relevant environmental information that should be addressed in preparing the forthcoming EIS are strongly encouraged to submit written comments. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire commentincluding your personal identifying informationmay be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All written comments must be postmarked or transmitted not later than March 31, 2008. Written comments should be mailed to North Cascades National Park Service Complex, Attn: SRCIP-EIS, 810 State Route 20, Sedro- Woolley, WA 98284 (or e-mailed to NOCA_planning@nps.govplease include ``Stehekin River Corridor Implementation Plan'' in the subject header). Comments may also be submitted via the NPS Planning Environment & Public Comment Web site at www.parkplanning.nps.gov/NOCA. Several public scoping workshops are anticipated to be held, including February 25 (Concrete), February 26 (Sedro-Woolley), March 4 (Bellingham), and March 5 (Seattle). Details regarding the workshops including times and meeting locations will be announced widely through local and regional news media, direct park mailings, and posted on the park's Web site at www.nps.gov/noca. Decision Process: At this time, the Draft EIS is expected to be available for public review in spring 2009. Formal announcement of its availability will be published in the Federal Register, and through local and regional news media, as well as distribution to public libraries. Following due consideration of all comments as may be received, a Final EIS will be prepared. As a delegated EIS, the official responsible for a final decision is the Regional Director, Pacific West Region. Subsequently the official responsible for implementing the approved plan and for monitoring results is the Superintendent, North Cascades National Park Service Complex.
National Preservation Technology and Training Board-National Center for Preservation Technology and Training: Meeting
Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. Appendix (1988)), that the Preservation Technology and Training Board (Board) of the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training (NCPTT), National Park Service will meet on Tuesday and Wednesday, April 15-16, 2008, in Natchitoches, Louisiana. The Board was established by Congress to provide leadership, policy advice, and professional oversight to the National Park Service's National Center for Preservation Technology and Training (National Center) in compliance with section 404 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 470x-2(e)). The Board will meet at Lee H. Nelson Hall, the headquarters of NCPTT, at 645 University Parkway, Natchitoches, LA 71457telephone (318) 356-7444. The meeting will run from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on April 15 and from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. on April 16. The Board's meeting agenda will include: review and comment on National Center FY2007 accomplishments and operational priorities for FY2008; FY2008 and FY2009 National Center budget and initiatives; proposed Conference on Sustainability in Preservation; revitalization of the Center's Friends group, and Board workgroup reports. The Board meeting is open to the public. Facilities and space for accommodating members of the public are limited, however, and persons will be accommodated on a first come, first served basis. Any member of the public may file a written statement concerning any of the matters to be discussed by the Board. Persons wishing more information concerning this meeting, or who wish to submit written statements, may contact: Mr. Kirk A. Cordell, Executive Director, National Center for Preservation Technology and Training, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 645 University Parkway, Natchitoches, LA 71457telephone (318) 356-7444. In addition to U.S. Mail or commercial delivery, written comments may be sent by fax to Mr. Cordell at (318) 356-9119. Minutes of the meeting will be available for public inspection no later than 90 days after the meeting at the office of the Executive Director, National Center for Preservation Technology and Training, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 645 University Parkway, Natchitoches, LA 71457telephone (318) 356-7444.