National Park Service 2005 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, as amended) and corresponding Council of Environmental Quality implementing regulations (40 CFR part 1500-1508), the National Park Service, Department of the Interior and its cooperating agencies have finalized a supplement to the Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration Implementation final environmental impact statement (1996 Implementation EIS). Two dams built in the early 1900s block the Elwha River and substantially limit anadromous fish passage. A 1996 Implementation EIS (second of two EISs that examined how best to restore the Elwha River ecosystem and native anadromous fishery in Olympic National Park) identified dam removal as the preferred option and identified a particular set of actions to remove the dams. The release of sediment from behind the dams would result in sometimes severe impacts to water quality or the reliability of supply to downstream users during the 3-5 year dam removal impact period, which the 1996 Implementation EIS proposed mitigating through a series of specific measures (see below). However, since 1996, when the Record of Decision was signed, new research and changes unrelated to the project have necessitated re-analysis of these measures. The primary purpose of this supplemental EIS (SEIS) is to analyze the potential impacts of a new set of water quality and supply related mitigation measures. Background: Elwha Dam was built on the Elwha River in 1911 and Glines Canyon Dam in 1925, limiting anadromous fish to the lowest 4.9 miles of river and blocking access to more than 70 miles of Elwha River mainstem and tributary habitat. The two dams and their associated reservoirs have also inundated and degraded important riverine and terrestrial habitat and severely affected fisheries habitat through increased temperatures, reduced nutrients, the absence of spawning gravels downstream and other changes. Consequently, salmon and steelhead populations in the river have been considerably reduced or eliminated, and the Elwha River ecosystem within Olympic National Park significantly and adversely altered. In 1992, Congress enacted the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act (Pub. L. 102-495) directing the Secretary of the Interior to fully restore the Elwha River ecosystem and native anadromous fisheries but also protecting municipal and industrial water users from the possible adverse impacts of dam removal. As noted above, the decisions associated with this process indicated removal of both dams was needed to fully restore the ecosystem. Impacts to water quality will result from the release of sediment which has accumulated behind the dams. Impacts to water supply will result from the release of fine sediment (i.e., silts and clays). These sediments can reduce yield by clogging the gravel that overlays subsurface intakes during periods of high turbidities. Increases in flooding or flood stage are also a likely result of dam removal, as sediments would replenish and raise the existing riverbed back to its pre-dam condition. The 1996 Implementation EIS proposed and analyzed numerous mitigation and flood controll measures to protect quality and ensure supply for each of the downstream users, which included: The installation of an infiltration gallery to collect water filtered from the riverbed; Open channel treatment of this water for industrial customers; Closure of the state chinook rearing channel during and for years following dam removal, with chinook production transferred to another state facility; The installation of a second subsurface Ranney collector on the opposite shore to maintain yield during meander away from the existing collector; A temporary package treatment plant to filter water from the Ranney wells during dam removal; Expansion of the tribal hatchery and of its infiltration gallery and drilling of groundwater wells to facilitate protection and production of Elwha anadromous fish for restoration, and; On-site flood protection for the Dry Creek Water Association wellfield, or connection of these users to the Point Angeles water system; The development of a mounded septic system on the Lower Elwha Klallam Reservation; and Strengthening and extension of the federal levee and other smaller levees and flood control structures. Continued study by the cooperating agencies since the 1996 Implementation EIS was finalized revealed the potential for unforeseen difficulties with some of the mitigation facilities, and identified different measures from those analyzed to resolve these difficulties. Further refining of the expected flood stage following the restoring of riverbed sediments also showed it would be higher in some areas of the river and lower in others than the original modeling predicted. In addition, changes in user needs resulting from factors unrelated to the project required a new look at some of the mitigation measures. For example, chinook salmon and bull trout have both been listed as threatened since 1997, resulting in the requirement to keep the state rearing facility open during dam removal. Also, the city of Port Angeles must now meet new standards for the treatment of its municipal supplies. In addition, an industrial customer (Rayonier) which required very high quality water for its operation has since closed. The low- lying lands of the Reservation have also been developed to such a degree since 1996 that a small mounded septic system would not be adequate. Proposal and Alternatives: The 1996 Implementation EIS focused on dam removal and sediment management and analyzed two action alternatives; it was tiered to an earlier programmatic EIS, which examined four options and a ``no action'' alternative for restoring the Elwha River ecosystem. Due to this extensive consideration of the overall project and its alternatives, the SEIS only analyzed the most preferable feasible alternative for mitigating impacts to water quality and supply in some cases. This is true of the facilities that would supply treated water for industrial, hatchery and municipal use. When several options with relatively equal value in protecting users from impacts to water quality or from flooding were available, each was analyzed in the SEIS. These include maintaining water quality for Dry Creek Water Association and Elwha Heights homeowners, upgrading the tribal hatchery, treating tribal wastewater, and providing flood protection mitigation for the tribal and other residents along the river. A discussion of alternatives for industrial, hatchery and municipal use that were not selected for analysis, and rationales for not carrying them further, is provided in the SEIS (Chapt.2) and in the Elwha River Water Quality Mitigation Project Planning Report (available at https://www.nps.gov/olym/elwha/home.htm). As documented in the Draft and Final SEIS, the proposal is deemed to be the ``environmentally preferred'' alternative; and it includes the following: The use of surface water rather than a subsurface infiltration gallery and additional Ranney well to supply the city's municipal and industrial customers, the tribal hatchery and the state chinook rearing channel. This change is intended to prevent ``blinding'', which research after 1996 found was likely to occur in any kind of subsurface water collecting facility. Blinding clogs and effectively seals the surface with fine sediment for a period of time, and can substantially reduce water yield. Removal of the existing rock dam and intake structure that currently supplies the city's industrial customers, and replacement with a graded fish riffle and weir structure to pass fish (``Elwha Water Surface Intake'' in the SEIS) and pool water. The existing intake will be replaced. A sediment removal facility (``Elwha Water Treatment Facility'' in the SEIS) built in the location of the existing industrial treatment channel on the east bank of the river, which will receive water for treatment from the weir and intake described above. This facility will supply industrial customers, and also at times a new water treatment facility during the 3-5 year dam removal impact period. A new permanent water treatment facility in Port Angeles (``Port Angeles Water Treatment Facility'' in the SEIS) adjacent to the city's existing landfill area, which will receive water from the sediment removal facility during and for a period of time following dam removal, and subsequently from the city's existing Ranney collector. Flood protection of the Dry Creek Water Association's existing wellfield. Connecting the Elwha Heights Water Association to the Dry Creek Water Association water delivery system to protect water quality of Elwha Heights water users. Relocation of the tribal hatchery to the Halberd parcel on Lower Elwha Klallam Tribal land, with water supplied from the Elwha Water Treatment Plant during the sediment release impact period. Keeping the state chinook rearing channel open during dam removal with water from the Elwha Water Treatment Plant during the sediment release impact period and creating a rearing pond on nearby Morse Creek as an additional rearing location for use during dam removal. Raising the federal levee an average of 3.3 feet (as compared to 2.5 feet in the 1996 Implementation EIS) and armoring with rock riprap where needed. The federal levee would be extended both north and south to provide additional protection from flooding following dam removal. The northward extension would be 450 feet in length; the southward extension would be a 1,650-foot route south and southeast across the Halberd property. This route includes use (raising and strengthening) of an existing levee haul road. A second levee across the river would also be raised. A series of small-scale flood protection measures, such as raising wellheads, dikes, roads or property to protect private citizens and existing facilities (Ranney collector, state WDFW fish-rearing facility, etc.) would be built. Most are similar or identical to those already analyzed in the 1996 Implementation EIS. Providing an on-reservation wastewater collection and treatment system to handle wastewater generated on the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe's reservation. Sections removed from Glines Dam would be transported to a private facility to be crushed and recycled if economics indicate this would be advantageous. If not, concrete would be disposed of in open pit mines and other locations evaluated in the 1996 Implementation EIS. A trail, overlook and chemical toilet available to all (including disabled) visitors would be built to observe the removal of Elwha Dam and offer future interpretive opportunities. Property and/or conservation easements would be purchased to offset impacts of dam removal to trumpeter swans. Each of these facilities is funded wholly or in part by the federal government to the extent that they provide mitigation from the effects of dam removal. Additional funding may be provided by homeowners groups or by other interested parties if protection or improvement beyond that resulting directly from dam removal is desired. The No Action alternative is the same alternative as was discussed in the 1996 Implementation EIS; that is, no dam removal would take place. Because the dams would remain, water and flooding mitigation would not be needed. Public Response to Draft SEIS: The draft SEIS was released for public review and comment in January 2005. Comments were received until March 15, 2005. The NPS received 8 letters and an Enviromental Protection Agency (EPA) evaluation of LO, or lack of objections (also noticed in the Federal Register on April 8, 2005). Commenters included the Washington Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Natural Resources, the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, the city of Port Angeles, Dry Creek Water Association, Inc., American Whitewater, Trout Unlimited, and Mr. Russ Busch, Tribal Attorney. Synopsis of Comments and Changes in Final SEIS: The state agencies primarily reminded the NPS that various permits to begin dam removal would be required. Three individuals from the Tribe submitted requests for changed language reflecting updates since the draft SEIS was released. Because the Tribe and city of Port Angeles have been unable to reach a final agreement on the acceptance of tribal wastewater to the city's treatment facility, a second alternative was added. This alternative would be located on tribal land and would use a membrane bio-reactor technology and constructed wetland to treat wastewater and minimize impact of any effluent. Effluent would be allowed to infiltrate into soil underlying the wetland, or would be released into the Elwha River. This is the preferred alternative, rather than connecting to the city of Port Angeles' wastewater treatment facility. The Tribe has also evaluated two different alignments for extending the federal levee to the south that would better mitigate impacts from flooding at this end of the reservation. These have been added to the text of the final SEIS, although the preferred alternative is one that was analyzed in the draft SEIS. Additional information on fisheries and vegetation issues that have no bearing on the decision of a preferred alternative, but which add to the completeness of the final SEIS, was suggested by the third tribal individual. The city of Port Angeles' comments were wide ranging: some requested additional clarification on measures to mitigate impacts (to industrial users, for example); others mentioned permitting and final clearances that would be required from the city; some asked for additional impact information, such as to Orca whales, socioeconomics, and current traffic conditions; and others debated accuracy of statements in the draft SEIS. Although additional impact information and clarity on mitigation measures has been added where NPS felt it was incomplete or would be helpful, no changes to the preferred alternative were necessitated as a result of the city's comments. Mr. Busch asked for additional information to be added to the description and impacts of the No Action alternative, as well as to the impacts of the preferred alternative. The added information would not affect selection of the preferred alternative or alter it in any way. American Whitewater asked that the safety of the new surface diversion facility (the Elwha Surface Water Intake) be evaluated so that access for recreational uses would be maintained along the entire river, and Trout Unlimited indicated support for several of the features of the preferred alternative. The diversion would be able to pass kayaks and other craft safely, and signs to indicate any hazard areas would be used to direct recreational users. Distribution of Final SEIS: Those who commented during the review period on the draft SEIS will receive a complete final SEIS document, as will agencies and others on the park mailing list (as noted in chapter 5 of the final SEIS). Others may request a paper copy of the final SEIS, a CD of the final SEIS and/or a CD of the full 1996 Implementation EIS which the subject document supplements. Please specify which of these documents/CDs is desired when contacting the Elwha Project Management Office. Finally, both the final SEIS and 1996 Implementation EIS will be posted on the Elwha project Web site at https://www.nps.gov/olym/elwha/home.htm. Decision Process: Following release of the final SEIS the NPS will wait for a minimum period of at least 30 days from the date this notice is published in the Federal Register before making a final decision on which mitigation facilities it will select. Therefore if there are interested persons or organizations wishing to express any remaining concerns or comments on the content of the final SEIS, they should send them in writing to Dr. Brian Winter, Elwha Project Manager, at 826 East Front Street, Ste.A, Port Angeles, WA 98362; telephone inquires may be directed to (360) 565-1320. Faxed or electronic transmittals will be accept also (electronic comments should be sent to Brian Winter@nps.gov, and faxes may be sent to (360) 565-1325). If substantive new information is submitted that both (1) could not have been raised during scoping or the review of the draft SEIS and (2) that has bearing on the selection of the preferred mitigation alternative, the NPS will consider such information. Respondents are reminded that decisions or facts in the 1996 Implementation EIS are not subject to public review at this time. If any persons or organizations choose to respond, please include name and address (note that names and addresses of commenters become part of the public record). If individuals commenting request that their name or/ and address be withheld from public disclosure, it will be honored to the extent allowable by law. Such requests must be stated prominently in the beginning of the comments. There also may be circumstances wherein the NPS will withhold from the record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. As always: the NPS will make available to public inspection all submissions from organizations or businesses and from persons identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations and businesses; and, anonymous comments may not be considered. As a delegated EIS, the official responsible for the final decision is the Regional Director, Pacific West Region. Subsequently the official responsible for implementing the selected mitigation alternative is the Superintendent, Olympic National Park.

The Secretary of the Interior is giving notice of her intent to establish the Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Dog Management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNR) to negotiate and develop a special regulation (proposed rule) for dog management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area.

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the National Park Service is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Winter Use Plans for Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway. These three park units are located in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. This effort will result in a comprehensive management plan for winter recreational use of the parks. The NPS will be inviting several other government agencies to participate in the development of the EIS as cooperating agencies, including the states of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho; the counties of Park and Teton, Wyoming, Gallatin and Park, Montana, and Fremont, Idaho; the Environmental Protection Agency; and the U.S. Forest Service. A scoping letter has been prepared that details the issues identified to date. Copies of that information may be obtained online at https://parkplanning.nps.gov or from Yellowstone National Park, P.O. Box 168, Yellowstone National Park, WY 82190, 307-344-2019. The NPS is interested in obtaining comments from the public on the scope of the EIS, the issues that the EIS should address and the alternatives that should be considered in the EIS. Comments submitted during this scoping period will allow the NPS to address these public concerns as the EIS is prepared. Background: The NPS is preparing this EIS to develop a long-term plan for managing winter recreational use in three park units. Currently, winter use in the parks is operating under a temporary winter use plan. This plan and environmental assessment were completed with the signing of a finding of no significant impact on November 4, 2004, and implementing regulations published on November 10, 2004. The plan is intended to be in effect for three winter seasons (i.e., the winters of 2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007), while the NPS prepares a long-term plan and analysis of the effects of winter use in the parks. This notice of intent formally begins the long-term planning process. The temporary winter use plan allows for a maximum of 720 snowmobiles in Yellowstone each day. All recreational snowmobiles in Yellowstone must be led by commercial guides. In Grand Teton, 50 snowmobiles are allowed per day on the Continental Divide Snowmobile Trial and Grassy Lake Road and 40 snowmobiles are allowed per day on Jackson Lake in order to provide access for ice fishing. With few exceptions, all snowmobiles are required to be ``Best Available Technology'' (BAT), which are the cleanest and quietest commercially available snowmobiles. Snowplanes are not allowed on Jackson Lake. Snowcoaches are also permitted in Yellowstone and the Rockefeller Parkway, and are required to have functioning emissions control equipment. Because the temporary winter use plan is only in effect for three winter seasons, the NPS intends to complete this EIS process and issue new regulations (if necessary) prior to the start of the 2007-2008 winter season. The purpose of the EIS will be to ensure that park visitors have a range of appropriate winter recreational opportunities, while ensuring that these recreational activities are in an appropriate setting and do not impair or irreparably harm park resources or values. Alternatives to be considered in the EIS will focus on responding to the purpose and need. Specifically, the NPS will include alternatives allowing varying amounts and types of snowmobile and/or snowcoach use. The NPS will also consider alternatives with varying guiding requirements, including allowing for some unguided or non-commercially snowmobile guided use. In addition, the EIS will examine the effects of road grooming (which is necessary to allow for oversnow travel for both administrative and recreational use of snowmobiles and snowcoaches) on bison and other ungulates. To assess this issue, the EIS will consider an alternative or alternatives that would eliminate road grooming on some or all park roads. Major issues to be addressed in the EIS include the environmental effects of winter use on air quality and visibility, natural soundscapes, employee and visitor health and safety, wildlife (including the effects of road grooming on bison and other ungulates), visitor experience, and socioeconomics. A more detailed history of the winter use issue is available online at https://www.nps.gov/yell/planvisit/winteruse/index.htm.

Pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(C), the National Park Service announces the availability of a Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Fire Management Plan, Chiricahua National Monument, Arizona.

Notice is given that the boundary of the Biscayne National Park has been revised pursuant to the Acts as specified below, to encompass lands depicted on Drawing 169/80,001, Segment 104, Biscayne National Park, revised February 14, 2005, prepared by the National Park Service. The revision to the boundary includes tract 104-16, as depicted on the map.

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(C), the National Park Service is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for Middle Fork Avalanche Hazard Reduction for Glacier National Park, Montana. This effort will result in agreed upon methods to reduce the avalanche hazard to trains and personnel that travel through the John Stevens Canyon between mile post 180 and 192 on State Highway 2, adjacent to the boundary of Glacier National Park. The Burlington Northern Santa-Fe Railroad runs along the southern boundary of Glacier National Park on Flathead National Forest lands. These lands are under a Right-of-Way. The avalanche paths that threaten the trains and personnel are within Glacier National Park. Alternatives to be considered include (1) No-Action, (2) Snow Sheds in all Chutes and an Avalanche Monitoring Program (but no triggering or stability testing), (3) Combination of Snow Sheds and Avalanche Monitoring, Stability Testing and Triggering, (4) No New Sheds and Ongoing Avalanche Monitoring Stability Testing and Triggering and (5) Temporary Avalanche Monitoring, Stability Testing and Triggering Until Snow Sheds are Constructed. The No Action alternative will consider the affects of maintaining the existing sheds avalanche monitoring and continued use of the existing avalanche sensor wires. Alternative 2 will consider the effects of constructing five new sheds and adding onto six existing sheds. Avalanche monitoring would be ongoing, but no stability testing or triggering would occur after sheds are constructed. Alternative 3 will consider a combination of snow sheds and monitoring, stability testing and triggering of avalanches when snow conditions indicate. Alternative 4 will consider only using avalanche monitoring, stability testing and triggering. Alternative 5 will consider the temporary use of avalanche stability testing and triggering until snow sheds are constructed. Avalanche monitoring would continue to occur. Major issues include avalanche stability testing and triggering within proposed wilderness in Glacier National Park, impacts to threatened and endangered species known to use the area, winter recreational use in the area, protection of resources from accidental freight spills caused by avalanches, and safety for the public and personnel in the area. Amtrak travels daily through the area. A scoping letter has been prepared. Copies may be obtained from Superintendent, PO Box 128, Glacier National Park, West Glacier, Montana 59936 or by calling 406-888-7901. Information may also be obtained from https://parkplanning.nps.gov/.

Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the National Park Service (NPS) announces its intent to prepare a General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (GMP/EIS) for Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park, located in Frederick, Shenandoah, and Warren Counties of Virginia. The park consists of 3,000 acres that comprise significant portions of the Cedar Creek Battlefield, a decisive battle in the Civil War, and Belle Grove Plantation, an antebellum manor house listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In the enabling legislation for the park, Congress established a Federal Advisory Commission to advise in the preparation of a GMP, and key partner organizations who may continue to own and manage properties within the park. Prepared by planners at the park and in the NPS Northeast Region, with assistance from advisors and consultants, the GMP/EIS will propose a long-term approach to managing Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park.

Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, as amended), the Council of Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR part 1500), and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1271), the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, has prepared the Final Merced Wild and Scenic River Revised Comprehensive Management Plan and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS). It is intended to amend and supplement the Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (Merced River Plan/FEIS) released in June 2000. The Final Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS identifies and evaluates four alternatives for guiding management of the Merced Wild and Scenic River within the jurisdiction of the National Park Service in Yosemite and the El Portal Administrative Site. Potential impacts and appropriate mitigation measures are assessed for each alternative. When approved, the plan will serve as a template for all future decisions relating to recreation and land use within the 81-mile Merced River corridor on both the main stem and South Fork. The primary goals of the plan are to ensure the free-flowing condition of the river, along with providing long-term protection and enhancement of what the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act calls the river's ``Outstandingly Remarkable Values'' the unique qualities that make the river worthy of special protection. Purpose and Need for Federal Action: The Merced River Plan is the official document for guiding future management of the main stem and South Fork of the Merced Wild and Scenic River within the jurisdiction of the National Park Service (NPS). In August 2000, the Merced River Plan/FEIS was approved (the Record of Decision was subsequently revised in November 2000). Shortly after the Record of Decision was signed, the plan became the subject of a lengthy litigation process. In April 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit directed the NPS to prepare a ``new or revised'' comprehensive management plan that addresses two deficiencies identified in the Court's October 27, 2003 opinion (Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 803 9th Cir. 2003). The Court ruled that: (1) The revised plan must implement a user capacity program that presents specific measurable limits on use, and (2) the revised plan must reassess the river corridor boundary in the El Portal Administrative Site based on the location of Outstandingly Remarkable Values. The programmatic guidance identified herein would revise and supplement the Merced River Plan/FEIS and the park's 1980 General Management Plan. Proposed Plan and Alternatives: In the proposed Revised Merced River Plan, Alternative 2 (agency preferred alternative) would include all of the elements of the No Action Alternative, with the addition of implementing the Visitor Experience Resource Protection (VERP) user capacity component, along with interim limits on some park facilities; the El Portal segment boundary would be redrawn to a quarter-mile on either side of the river. In addition to this proposed plan, the Final Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS identifies and analyzes three other alternatives: Alternative 1No Action; Alternative 3Segment Limits with VERP Program; and Alternative 4Management Zone Limits with VERP Program. Alternative 2 has also been deemed to be the ``environmentally preferable'' alternative. The No Action Alternative represents a baseline from which to compare the three action alternatives. Under Alternative 1, the Merced River Planas detailed in the 2000 Record of Decision (and subsequent revision)would continue to guide management in the river corridor. Application of its management elements (boundaries, classifications, Outstandingly Remarkable Values, management zoning, River Protection Overlay, Section 7 determination process) would continue as presented in the plan. However, a program of standards and indicators under the Visitor Experience Resource Protection (VERP) framework would not be in place and the park would continue managing user capacity under existing programs and policies outlined in the February 2004 User Capacity Program for the Merced Wild and Scenic River Corridor. This program includes continuation of the current wilderness management program and existing Wilderness Trailhead Quota System. Alternative 1 would implement the narrow boundary for the El Portal segment as described in the selected alternative of the Merced River Plan/FEIS (100-year floodplain or River Protection Overlay [whichever is greater] along with adjacent wetlands). Alternative 3 would also include all of the elements from the No Action alternative, in addition to a VERP user capacity component (as described in Alternative 2), along with a maximum daily limit for each river segment and an annual visitation limit of 5.32 million; the El Portal segment would have the maximum quarter-mile boundary. Alternative 4 would contain the elements of No Action in addition to a VERP user capacity component (as described in Alternative 2), along with limits for each river management zone and an annual visitation limit of 3.27 million; the El Portal segment boundary would be drawn according to the location of Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Planning Background: The draft and final Revised Merced River Plan/ SEIS were prepared pursuant to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and National Environmental Policy Act. On July 27, 2004, a Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement was published in the Federal Register. At this time, a 30-day scoping period was initiated. In response to public comment, this scoping period was extended to September 10, 2004. During scoping, a series of public meetings were held. A letter from the Superintendent was sent to over 8,000 interested members of the public on the park's Planning Mailing list, encouraging them to submit ideas, issues, and concerns relating to the scope of this planning effort. In addition, the scoping period and associated public meetings were publicized via regional media, on the park's Web site, through emailed notices on the park's electronic newsletter, and on various state-wide online bulletin boards. Over 100 letters, faxes, and emails were received and considered during the development of the Draft Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS. All written scoping comments, as well as oral testimony from public hearings, can be viewed on the park's Web site (https://www.nps.gov/yose/planning/mrp/ revision). A scoping report is also available. On January 14, 2005, a Notice of Availability for the Draft Merced Wild and Scenic River Revised Comprehensive Management Plan Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement was published in the Federal Register. The public review period continued through March 22, 2005. Approximately 1,500 printed copies and 600 CD-ROM versions of the draft SEIS were mailed to interested individuals and organizations. In February and March 2005, a series of public meetings was held in locations throughout California to discuss the draft document. During the public comment period, eleven public meetings were hosted throughout California between February 22, 2005 and March 7, 2005. Meetings were held at El Portal, San Francisco, Burbank, Oakhurst, Mammoth Lakes, Sacramento, Fresno, Merced, Mariposa, Groveland and in Yosemite Valley. An additional Open House was hosted in Yosemite Valley prior to the end of the public comment period. Each public meeting was set up to allow for (1) informal conversations between park staff (including consultants) and the public, (2) a presentation by park staff on the plan's proposed elements, and (3) a formal public hearing attended by a court reporter. The public was encouraged to submit written comments on the Draft Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS via letter, email or fax. Attendees could also leave written comments on comment forms provided at the meetings. The NPS contacted local, regional, and national media outlets, issued press releases that were faxed and emailed to media outlets and phone calls that were made to newspaper and news reporters to generate interest in the plan. In addition, paid newspaper advertisements were placed in the Mariposa Gazette, the Sierra Star (Oakhurst, CA), the Union Democrat (Sonora, CA), the Merced Sun-Star and the Mammoth Times. Paid public notices were placed in the San Francisco Chronicle, the L.A. Times, the Sacramento Bee, and the Fresno Bee. Numerous stories about the plan and the schedule of public meetings appeared in local and regional newspapers. In addition, several project fact sheets were posted on the park's Web site; fliers were posted on community bulletin boards, post offices, and local businesses in communities where public meetings were hosted; and press release announcements were included in the park's Daily Report throughout the entire comment period. The park specifically initiated dialogue with several interested local parties. These included park employees and their families, Delaware North Companies Parks and Resorts at Yosemite (primary concessioner) employees and residents, and park partner staff such as the Yosemite Institute, the Yosemite Association, and The Yosemite Fund. In addition, there was extensive outreach within the local communities of El Portal and Wawona through participation at local Mariposa County Planning Advisory Committee meetings. The park also conducted a ``walking tour'' in El Portal to discuss the process for identifying Outstandingly Remarkable Values within the El Portal segment of the Merced River and the rationale for the various El Portal boundary alternatives. The NPS engaged gateway communities throughout the process through personal communications and meetings between the park staff and gateway community members. As a result of the public review period, the NPS received comments from 114 individuals, 25 organizations, 6 government agencies, 2 tribes and 1 university, including public testimony given by individuals at public meetings. Over 900 individual comments were received. The analysis of these comments generated about 400 concerns statements, which were categorized and considered for incorporation in the planning process. The public comments received and transcripts from the public hearings are available for viewing on the park Web site (https:// www.nps.gov/yose/planning/mrp/revision). The Public Comment Analysis and Response Report is included as Appendix F in the Final SEIS. Distribution of Final Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS: A mail-back postcard was sent to all individuals and organizations on the park's general mailing list asking recipients if they would like to receive a printed copy or CD-ROM version (or both) of the Final Revised Merced River Plan/SEIS. This announcement also indicated that the plan would be available for viewing on the park's Web site (https://www.nps.gov/ yose/planning). Copies of the final plan will also be available at the National Park Service headquarters in Yosemite Valley, the Yosemite Valley Research Library, the National Park Service warehouse building in El Portal, and at a number local and regional libraries (listed in Chapter VI of the Final SEIS). Decision Process: Depending upon the response from other agencies, interested organizations, and the general public, at this time it is anticipated that a Record of Decision would be approved not sooner than at least 30 days have elapsed after publication by the EPA of their filing notice for the Final Revised MRP/SEIS. Notice of the approved decision will be posted in the Federal Register and announced in local and regional media. As a delegated EIS, the official responsible for the decision is the Regional Director, Pacific West Region, National Park Service; subsequently the official responsible for implementing the approved Revised Merced River Plan is the Superintendent, Yosemite National Park.

This notice announces a June 28, 2005, meeting of the Wekiva River System Advisory Management Commission.

Pursuant to Sec. 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, as amended), and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500-1508), the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, has prepared a final general management plan (GMP) and environmental impact statement (EIS) for Crater Lake National Park, Oregon. The final EIS identifies and analyzes four GMP alternatives which respond to both NPS planning requirements and to the issues identified during the public scoping process. The ``no-action'' alternative (Alternative 1) describes the existing conditions and trends of park management and serves as a baseline for comparison in evaluating the other alternatives. The three ``action'' alternatives variously address visitor use, natural and cultural resource management, and park development. Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, emphasizes increased opportunities in recreational diversity, resource preservation, research and resource education. Under Alternative 3 visitors would experience a greater range of natural and cultural resources through recreational opportunities and education. The focus of Alternative 4 would be on preservation and restoration of natural processes. Background: Public meetings and newsletters have been used to keep the public informed and involved in the conservation planning and environmental impact analysis process for the GMP. A mailing list was compiled that consisted of members of government agencies, nongovernmental groups, businesses, legislators, local governments, and interested citizens. The Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on May 25, 2001. A newsletter issued January 2001 introduced the GMP planning process (a total of 72 written comments were received in response). Public meetings were held during April 2001 in Klamath Falls, Medford, Roseburg, and Salem and were attended by 96 people. A second newsletter issued in July 2001 summarized all comments received in the meetings and in response to newsletter 1. These comments were used to complete the park purpose and significance statements that serve as the foundation for the rest of the GMP planning (and were referred to throughout development of the GMP). A third newsletter distributed in the spring of 2002 described the draft alternative concepts and management zoning proposed for managing the park (a total of 95 comments were received in response). In general, opinions were fairly divided in support of individual alternatives and potential ways to address issues. A number of letters favored continued snowmobile use, while other people favored eliminating snowmobiles in the park. Opinions were also divided regarding ways to manage traffic congestion on Rim Drivemaintaining current two-way traffic, converting part of the road to one-way traffic, using shuttles, or closure of the road to traffic. Most respondents favored use of shuttles. A number of people who opposed partnering with private industry were concerned with potential for large-scale commercialization within the park. The Notice of Availability for the Draft EIS and GMP was printed August 3, 2004. The public comment period was open until October 6, 2004. A total of 646 comments were received. Forty-seven letters and e- mails were sent in by individuals. Four agencies responded. Three different form letters accounted for the remaining 599 comments. The most common comment issues were snowmobiles (24 letters/e-mails and all 3 form letters), road closure (15 letters/e-mails and 2 of 3 form letters), shuttles (7 letters/e-mails and 1 of 3 form letters), and snow coachers (4 letters/e-mails and 1 of 3 form letters). Comments and representative letters received on the Draft document have been incorporated into the Final EIS and GMP. Proposed Plan and Alternatives: Alternative 1 is the ``no action'' alternative and represents continuation of the current management direction and approach at the park. It is a way of evaluating the proposed actions of the other three alternatives. Existing buildings and facilities in the park would remain; some historic structures would be adaptively used. Munson Valley would continue to serve as the center of NPS administration, maintenance, and housing. The existing road access and circulation system within the park would continue, and visitor recreational opportunities and interpretive programs in the park would continue. Alternative 2 is the ``agency preferred'' alternative and has also been determined to be the ``environmentally preferred'' alternative. Management of the park would emphasize increased opportunities for recreational diversity and research and education. Most recreational opportunities would remain, but new opportunities along Rim Drive would allow visitors to directly experience the primary resource of Crater Lake in ways other than driving. Any new uses around the rim would be non-motorized and low impact. Research and educational opportunities would be enhanced. A new science and learning center would form the core of the new research. The park would expand and encourage partnerships with universities, scientists, and educational groups. The information gathered would be disseminated throughout the park to rangers, interpretive staff, and visitors. Alternative 3 emphasizes enjoyment of the natural environment. This alternative would allow visitors to experience a greater range of natural and cultural resources significant and unique to the park through recreational opportunities and education. A wider range of visitor experiences would reach out to greater diversity of visitor groups. Recreational programs, which would focus on minimizing impact, would provide the focus for interpretation and education. Resources would be managed to permit recreation while protecting the resources. Opportunities for recreation would be viewed in a regional context, where the park could serve as a source of information for regional recreational opportunities. Use of most current facilities would continue. News trails, new interpretive signs and other media, and expanded tour programs would be possible in Alternative 3. In Alternative 4, park management would be focused on resource preservation and restoration. The park would be an active partner in a regional conservation strategy that would include other agencies and environmental groups. Most park operations and visitor contact facilities would be outside the park and shared with other agencies and communities. Areas that have been altered would be restored to their natural conditions. Cultural resources would be preserved at the highest level possible. The visitor experience would stress activities that have low environmental impacts on and are harmonious with the resources. More emphasis would be placed on self-guided and discovery education, and interpretive programs would focus on stewardship. Vehicular transportation would be altered to reinforce the visitor experience. The Rim Road would be closed between Cleetwood Cove and Kerr Notch. Winter use of the park would change to allow natural processes to proceed with fewer disturbances than current management practices allow. Winter plowing of the road to the rim would stop, except for spring opening. Snowmobiling along North Junction Road would no longer be allowed. Facilities that are not historic and not essential to park functions would be removed and the area rehabilitated. Functions that are, by necessity park-based, would be retained in the park. Public Review: The Final EIS/GMP is now available. Interested persons and organizations wishing to express any concerns or provide relevant information are encouraged to obtain the document from the Superintendent, Crater Lake National Park, P.O. Box 7, Highway 62, Crater Lake, Oregon, or via telephone at (541) 594-3001. The document may also be viewed at area libraries, or obtained electronically via the park's Web site at https://www.planning.nps.gov. Please note that names and addresses of people who comment become part of the public record. If individuals commenting request that their name or[bs]and address be withheld from public disclosure, it will be honored to the extent allowable by law. Such requests must be stated prominently in the beginning of the comments. There also may be circumstances wherein the NPS will withhold from the record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. As always: The NPS will make available to public inspection all submissions from organizations or businesses and from persons identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations and businesses; and, anonymous comments may not be considered. Decision: Following release of the Final EIS/GMP, a Record of Decision (ROD) will be prepared and approved not sooner than 30 days after the EPA has published its notice of filing of the document in the Federal Register. A notice of the approved ROD would be similarly published, as well as announced through local and regional press media. As a delegated EIS, the official responsible for the decision is the Regional Director, Pacific West Region, National Park Service; subsequently the official responsible for implementing the approved GMP is the Superintendent, Crater Lake National Park.

Pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(C), the National Park Service announces the availability of a Final Environmental Impact Statement for the General Management Plan, Colorado National Monument, Colorado.

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(C), the National Park Service (NPS) is preparing an environmental impact statement for a general management plan for Effigy Mounds National Monument, Iowa. The environmental impact statement will be approved by the Director, Midwest Region. The general management plan will prescribe the resource conditions and visitor experiences that are to be achieved and maintained in the monument over the next 15 to 20 years. The clarification of what must be achieved according to law and policy will be based on review of the monument's purpose, significance, special mandates, and the body of laws and policies directing park management. Based on determinations of desired conditions, the general management plan will outline the kinds of resource management activities, visitor activities, and development that would be appropriate in the future. A range of reasonable management alternatives will be developed through this planning process and will include, at a minimum, no-action and the preferred alternative. Major issues to be addressed in the plan include: Cultural and natural resources of the park, visitor use of facilities and programs, staff access for resource patrols and visitor protection, trail development, vegetation control, management of threatened and endangered species, management of the Yellow River, and land protection.

This rule designates areas where personal watercraft (PWC) may be used in Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area, Montana and Wyoming. This rule implements the provisions of the National Park Service (NPS) general regulations authorizing park areas to allow the use of PWC by promulgating a special regulation. The NPS Management Policies 2001 require individual parks to determine whether PWC use is appropriate for a specific park area based on an evaluation of that area's enabling legislation, resources and values, other visitor uses, and overall management objectives.

At a March 13-15, 2005, public meeting in Honolulu, HI, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee (Review Committee) considered a dispute between Hui Malama I Na Kupuna O Hawai'i Nei and the Bishop Museum. The dispute focused on whether three items from the Island of Moloka'i in the possession of the Bishop Museum are subject to repatriation under provisions of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. The Review Committee recommended that the Bishop Museum proceed toward repatriation of the three objects to the appropriate claimants.