National Park Service July 2010 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

Pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2) (C), the National Park Service (NPS) announces the availability of the Abbreviated Final Environmental Impact Statement for the General Management Plan (GMP/EIS) for Roosevelt-Vanderbilt National Historic Sites, Hyde Park, New York.

This notice sets forth the date of the August 7, 2010, meeting of the Flight 93 Advisory Commission.

Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 460l- (9)(c)(1), the boundary of Lewis and Clark National Historical Park is modified to include an additional 106.74+/- acres of land identified as Tract No. 01-104, tax parcel nos: 710160000500 (account nos. 16983 and 16982), 71016AB02800 (account nos. 17134 and 17135), 71016AB02600 (account no. 17131), 71016AB03600 (account no. (17150), 71016AB02700 (account no. 17132), and 71016AB03204 (account no. 17143). The land is located in Clatsop County, Oregon, immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of the Sunset Beach portion of Lewis and Clark National Historical Park. The boundary revision is depicted on Map No. 405/ 80029, date drawn May 2010. This map is available for inspection at the following locations: National Park Service, Columbia Cascades Land Resources Program Center, 168 South Jackson Street, Seattle, WA 98104 and National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC 20240.

Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and 5 CFR part 1320, Reporting and Record Keeping Requirements, the National Park Service (NPS) invites public comments on renewal of an information collection approved under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 1024-0216.

Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and 5 CFR part 1320, Reporting and Record Keeping Requirements, the National Park Service (NPS) invites public comments on an extension of a currently approved information collection Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 1024-0022.

Pursuant to Sec. 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, as amended), and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500-1508), the National Park Service (NPS), Department of the Interior, has prepared a draft environmental impact statement for the proposed General Management Plan (GMP) for Ross Lake National Recreation Area (Ross Lake NRA) in Washington State. Ross Lake NRA is one of three units comprising the North Cascades National Park Service Complex. The draft GMP describes three ``action'' alternatives that respond to both NPS planning requirements and to the public's concerns and issues, identified during the scoping and public involvement process. Each alternative presents management strategies for resource protection and preservation, education and interpretation, visitor use and facilities, land protection and boundaries, and long-term operations and management of Ross Lake NRA.

Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and 5 CFR Part 1320, Reporting and Record Keeping Requirements, the National Park Service (NPS) invites public comments on an extension of a currently approved information collection Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control 1024-0233.

On December 29, 2000, the National Park Service (NPS) executed a Record of Decision selecting Alternative 2 from the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for implementation (as noticed in the Federal Register on January 12, 2001). As explained below, the NPS has subsequently approved a revised Record of Decision for the Final Yosemite Valley Plan and will implement Modified Alternative 2 instead. Decision: The NPS has approved adoption of a Modified Alternative 2 which consists of completed actions and projects that conform to four broad purposes and goals. These are to restore natural processes in Yosemite Valley, to ameliorate environmental impacts, to preserve cultural resource values, and to continue providing opportunities for high-quality visitor experiences. Excluded from the approved Modified Alternative 2 were certain projects yet to be initiated, including but not limited to consolidation of some parking and facilities in the eastern end of Yosemite Valley, relocation of equestrian facilities, removal of Sugar Pine Bridge, and several traffic recirculation plans. Also revised were Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSI decisions) for Yosemite Lodge area redevelopment and improvements at Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley campgrounds. Background: In 2006, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California challenging the 2000 Final Yosemite Valley Plan. Concurrently, the NPS was involved in a separate lawsuit filed by the same plaintiffs challenging the 2005 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan (Merced River Plan). Because the Yosemite Valley Plan and the Merced River Plan were integrally related, the NPS and the plaintiffs agreed to suspend proceedings on the Yosemite Valley Plan lawsuit until the courts reached a final decision on the Merced River Plan lawsuit. In March 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling affirming that the 2005 Merced River Plan did not adequately fulfill requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act nor the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Following that decision, the NPS and the plaintiffs began settlement discussions to resolve the two lawsuits and to establish a framework for moving forward on a new version of the Merced River Plan. A settlement was reached in September 2009 (the Settlement Agreement is available on the park's Web site: https://www.nps.gov/yose/ parkmgmt/upload/mrpsettlementagreement.pdf). Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the NPS agreed to revise the Record of Decision for the Yosemite Valley Plan, as well as two related FONSI decisions. The three revised documents were filed with the District Court on January 29, 2010. Copies: Interested parties may review the revised Record of Decision and FONSI decisions on the park's Web site, and copies can also be obtained by contacting the Superintendent, Yosemite National Park, P. O. Box 577, Yosemite, California 95389; via telephone request at (209) 372-0261; or via e-mail request at yose_ planning@nps.gov.

The National Park Service (NPS) is removing the regulation that closed the Harry S Truman Home to all public use until June 1, 2010. The closure was necessary because of serious health and safety hazards to visitors during the repair and restoration work and the potential for damage to irreplaceable artifacts. Closure could not be avoided without compromising the quality and cost of renovation of the Truman Home. It was necessary to become effective upon publication to allow major repair and restoration activities scheduled to proceed. The projects have been completed and the Truman Home has been reopened as scheduled.

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the National Park Service (NPS) announces the availability of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the General Management Plan, Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area, Georgia. On December 15, 2009, the Regional Director, Southeast Region, approved the ROD for the project. As soon as practicable, the NPS will begin to implement the Preferred Alternative contained in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) issued on November 13, 2009. Six alternatives were evaluated in the EIS These include: Alternative A, No Action Continue Current Management; Alternative B, Focus on Solitudeimplements management programs to minimize development in the park and maximize the opportunity for visitors to experience solitude in natural settings; Alternative CVisitors would be drawn toward a system of relatively developed hubs in which administrative and interpretive facilities are located; Alternative DExpanding and distributing access throughout the park, including newly acquired parcels to provide diverse types of visitor experiences; Alternative ETakes some features of Alternatives C and D and provides expanded access to the park while at the same time maintaining substantial acreage with less ``hardened'' forms of access such as paved parking areas, roads, and other structures; and Alternative F, the preferred alternativeIncreases opportunities for the park to expand use to local visitors and increase connectivity to neighboring communities through trail linkages, partnering, and expanded interpretive, education and outreach activities.