[Federal Register: March 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 50)]
[Notices]
[Page 13563-13566]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13mr08-75]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Final Environmental Impact Statement/General Management Plan,
Olympic National Park; Clallam, Gray's Harbor, Jefferson and Mason
Counties, WA; Notice of Availability
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42
U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the National Park Service (NPS) has prepared a Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed General Management Plan
(Final GMP/EIS), Olympic National Park, Washington. The purpose of the
GMP is to provide management direction for resource protection and
visitor use at Olympic National Park for the next 15 to 20 years. A GMP
is needed to confirm the purpose and significance of the park, to
clearly define resource conditions and visitor experiences to be
achieved in the park, to provide a framework for park managers to use
when making decisions as to how to best protect park resources and
provide for a diverse range of visitor experiences, to ensure a
foundation for decision making in consultation with interested
stakeholders, and to serve as the basis for more detailed management
documents. In addition to a ``baseline'' no-action alternative
(Alternative A) which would maintain current management, the Final GMP/
EIS describes and analyzes three ``action'' alternatives. Alternative B
emphasizes cultural and natural resource protection and natural
processes would take priority over visitor access in certain areas of
the park. Alternative C emphasizes increased recreational and visitor
opportunities. Alternative D is the ``management preferred''
alternative; it is a combination of the other alternatives, emphasizing
both protection of park resources and improving visitor experiences.
The foreseeable environmental consequences of all the alternatives, and
mitigation strategies, are identified and analyzed; as documented in
the Final EIS, Alternative D is deemed to be the ``environmentally
preferred'' course of action.
Description of Alternatives: The Final GMP/EIS includes three
action alternatives and a no-action alternative. The no-action
alternative (Alternative A) assumes that existing programs, facilities,
staffing, and funding would generally continue at their current levels,
and the current management practices would continue. There would be no
zoning designated within the park, and issues would be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis without a long range plan or vision. The park would
continue to be managed in accordance with existing plans and policies.
Alternative B emphasizes cultural and natural resource protection;
natural processes would have priority over visitor access in certain
areas of the park. In general, the park would be managed as a large
ecosystem preserve emphasizing wilderness management for resource
conservation and protection, with a reduced number of facilities to
support visitation. Some roads and facilities would be moved or closed
to protect natural processes, and visitor access and services in
sensitive areas would be reduced. Boundary adjustments for the purposes
of resource protection would be considered adjacent to the park in the
Ozette, Lake Crescent, Hoh, Queets, and Quinault areas. When compared
with the other alternatives, this alternative would have less front
country acreage designated as development, and more acreage designated
as low-use and day-use zones. This alternative includes a river zone
and an intertidal reserve zone.
Alternative C emphasizes increased recreational and visitor
opportunities. The natural and cultural resources are protected through
management actions and resource education programs. However,
maintaining access to existing facilities would be a priority, and
access would be retained to all existing front country areas or
increased by improving
[[Page 13564]]
park roads to extend season of use. New or expanded interpretation and
educational facilities would be constructed. This alternative includes
a boundary adjustment in the Ozette area. When compared with the other
alternatives, this alternative would have increased acreages zoned as
development and day use and decreased acreages of low-use zone areas.
This alternative would include an intertidal reserve zone; there would
be no river zone.
Alternative D is the park's ``preferred'' alternative. It was
developed by integrating key components of the other alternatives,
emphasizing both the protection of park resources and improving visitor
experiences. All management activities minimize adverse effects on park
resources to the extent possible. Access would be maintained to
existing front country areas, but roads might be modified or relocated
for resource protection, river restoration, and/or to maintain
vehicular access. Visitor education and interpretative facilities would
be improved or developed to improve visitor opportunities and to
protect park resources. Three boundary adjustments are proposed, which
include seeking land exchanges and partnering with Washington
Department of Natural Resources, developing protective strategies in
coordination with the U.S. Forest Service for its lands within the
adjusted boundaries, and acquiring private land by willing seller only.
This alternative includes slightly more development zone acreage in the
front country when compared with Alternative B, and slightly less than
Alternative C. This alternative has more day-use zone acreage than
Alternative B, and more low-use zone acreage than Alternative C. A
river zone is not included, but the alternative does include an
intertidal reserve zone.
Changes Incorporated in the Final EIS: The park made minor changes
and clarified aspects of the preferred alternative as a result of
public comment; however, there were no substantive modifications.
Editorial changes and additional explanatory text on topics of interest
were incorporated. Other changes made to the Final GMP/EIS as a result
of public comments included clarifying the purpose, need, and
legislative procedures for boundary adjustments and the potential cost
for property acquisition and land easements.
Several public comments related to the management of cultural
resources in wilderness. The wilderness and cultural resources sections
have been updated based on changes in NPS Management Policies 2006. The
public also expressed concerns related to existing access rights to
private property and the effects the alternatives would have on the
socioeconomic resources in the region. Information on private property
access rights has been included.
The socioeconomic information in the affected environment and
environmental consequences section has been updated based on the best
available information and data provided by the public during the Draft
EIS comment period.
There were questions from the public related to management and
wilderness zoning. Management zones have been rewritten to clarify
front country zone descriptions and stock use. Wilderness zoning
definitions remain within the plan but the exact on-the-ground
designation has been removed from the plan and will be delineated
through a subsequent wilderness management plan process (which will
include ample opportunity for public involvement and review). Area
Indian tribes provided comments and additional information for the
Final EIS. Laws and policies governing use by Native Americans of park
resources have been added to ``Laws, Regulations, Servicewide Mandates
and Policies'' and desired conditions and strategies under ``Parkwide
Policies and Servicewide Mandates'' have been updated or clarified for
several topics. In addition, visitation information has been updated
with the most up-to-date statistics. Responses to comments are provided
in the Final GMP/EIS.
In addition to these minor changes and clarifications, several
public comments resulted in minor modifications to the final preferred
alternative (Alternative D). Instituting an overnight permit system for
parking at Swan Bay was suggested so that lake users, including private
property owners, could park overnight at that location. Keeping
Rayonier Landing open for day use only was also proposed. Both of these
ideas were included in the final preferred alternative. Some agencies,
tribes, and communities requested increased partnering to improve
visitor education and opportunities and collaborative cultural and
natural resources management, and this is incorporated.
There were also suggestions to integrate components of Alternatives
A, B, and C into the final preferred alternative. Many commenters felt
that Alternative A should be selected as no change was necessary to
meet park management objectives. However, continuing the current
management would not fulfill the plan objectives and expressed purpose
and need.
The park received numerous comments to expand the proposed boundary
adjustment for the final preferred alternative to more closely match
that included in Alternative B. This was considered but not
incorporated in the final preferred alternative because the park
determined that other options could be used to promote resource
protection (such as working with partners and employing cooperative
management strategies outside the park boundaries). The park also
received multiple requests to integrate wild and scenic river studies
for the 12 eligible rivers into the plan, and to institute a river zone
as included in Alternative B. During development of the proposed GMP,
the park reviewed the existing eligibility studies and determined that
formal suitability studies related to wild and scenic rivers
designation would be conducted in a separate planning process after the
GMP is completed due to the high number of rivers involved and the
detail needed for these studies. The park also included protective
measures for rivers and floodplains in Alternative D; therefore a
formal river zone designation is not needed to meet park desired
conditions. The park also received recommendations to include
improvements to park roads and facilities similar to those explored
under Alternative C, including paving existing gravel roads, expanding
existing facilities and parking lots, and increasing visitor services.
These suggestions were rejected in the final preferred alternative
because they are not needed to meet park purpose, needs, and
objectives. Many suggestions provided were too detailed to be included
in the final proposed plan (e.g. interpretive exhibits, wilderness
management practices) and are recorded for consideration in future
implementation plans.
Text in the final preferred alternative has been clarified to
emphasize that any property acquisition would be by exchange, through
easements, or by willing seller only; updated information has been
provided to clarify the need for boundary expansions. Boundary
adjustments would not occur until property is acquired through the
willing seller process and accomplished pursuant to the legislative
process. The preferred alternative has been modified slightly based on
public concerns--the potential area of exchange for mineral rights has
been changed from lands solely in the Ozette watershed to lands within
the State of Washington. The NPS would work with the State of
[[Page 13565]]
Washington to identify priority areas for exchange.
Public Engagement: The park's Notice of Intent initiating the
conservation planning and environmental impact
analysis[bs]GMP planning process was published in the
Federal Register on June 4, 2001. Public engagement and information
measures have included public meetings, presentations and meetings,
newsletter and postcard mailings, local and regional press releases,
and Web site postings. The official public scoping process began in
June 2001 when a scoping newsletter was distributed to approximately
800 people on the park's mailing list. During September and October
2001, public scoping meetings were held in several locations around the
Olympic Peninsula and in the region. More than 500 comments were
received during the scoping process. The majority of comments fell into
the following categories: resource protection, wilderness management,
visitor use and experience, access to park areas, and partnerships. Due
consideration of these comments aided in defining the issues to be
considered in developing the draft plan.
In January 2002, a newsletter was distributed to summarize the
planning issues and concerns brought forward during scoping, and to
announce five workshops to be held in late January to seek public
participation in developing alternatives. This was followed by the
releases of a preliminary alternatives newsletter (distributed in May
2003) and a park update newsletter (distributed November 2004) to the
project mailing list, which had reached approximately 1,200
individuals, agencies, area tribes, and organizations. In March 2006 an
R.S.V.P. card with a postage paid response was sent to those on the
mailing list to announce the upcoming release of the draft plan and to
determine who on the mailing list wanted a copy of the plan.
Approximately 340 cards were returned with requests for a copy of the
plan or for notification of its release.
The EPA's notice of filing of the draft EIS was published in the
Federal Register on June 16, 2006, and the document was available for
extended public review for 105 days through September 30, 2006, during
which time the NPS distributed approximately 900 copies. The park's
Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register on July
14, 2006. The document was available at park offices, visitor centers
and at area libraries, and it was posted on the Internet. Printed and
CD-ROM copies were sent upon request, and also distributed to agencies,
government representatives, area tribes, organizations, and interested
individuals.
Detailed information announcing the opportunity for public review
and the locations, times and dates for public workshops was published
in several area newspapers, including The Peninsula Daily News, Forks
Forum, The Daily World, The Seattle Times, Port Townsend and Jefferson
County Leader, and the Kitsap Sun. Public workshops were conducted in
Port Townsend, Port Angeles, Sequim, Forks, Sekiu-Clallam Bay, Amanda
Park, Shelton, Silverdale, and Seattle. Over 250 people attended the
workshops.
The NPS received approximately 500 comments on the Draft EIS by
mail, fax, hand delivery, oral transcript, and via the Internet. In
addition, approximately 637 additional individuals responded by using
one of seven different form letters and approximately 827 individuals
signed one of three petitions. The following topics received the most
comment: access to park facilities, boundary adjustments, management
zoning, Olympic Hot Springs restoration, Ozette Lake, partnerships,
rivers and floodplains, socioeconomic resources, tribal treaty rights
and trust resources, protection of ethnographic resources, employment
opportunities, government-to-government consultation, partnerships, and
how to improve relationships with the park, visitor use, stock use
opportunities, wilderness management, and cultural resources
management. Some commenters cited concerns related to accessibility,
air quality, air tours and overflights, park budget and budget
priorities, climate change, costs of implementing the preferred
alternative, education and outreach, facilities management, fisheries
resources, geologic processes, habitat, night sky, soundscape
management, topics dismissed (e.g. environmental justice, unique
farmlands), vegetation, water resources, wild and scenic river studies,
and wildlife management (native, extirpated, and non-native).
Throughout the planning process, the NPS has consulted with various
tribal, federal, state, and local government agencies, including the
U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Western Washington
Office and the Washington Islands National Wildlife Refuge), National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Fisheries Office and Olympic
Coast National Marine Sanctuary), Federal Highways Administration,
Washington State Historic Preservation Office, the Advisory Council for
Historic Preservation, Washington State Department of Natural
Resources, Washington State Department of Transportation, and local,
city, and county officials and agencies.
Consultations and informational meetings were also held with area
tribal governments. Tribal consultation meetings were held with all
eight tribes in 2001, and follow-up meetings were held in 2004 and 2005
to provide an update on the status of the plan. During the public
review period, in 2006, meetings were offered to all eight tribes, and
six tribes requested meetings. Six tribes provided a wide range of
comments on the draft plan. Several tribes brought forward issues that
need to be addressed outside the scope of the plan, such as
jurisdiction, trust resources, treaty rights, gathering, and land
issues. Tribes were also concerned about how boundary adjustments would
affect their tribal treaty rights. The park integrated many tribal
comments and suggested revisions into the final plan. At the request of
the tribes, a meeting was held July 20, 2007 to review the tribal
comments and the park responses and changes to the final plan. Seven of
the eight tribes attended the meeting, plus three tribes requested
individual meetings after the group session. While not all issues were
addressed in the final plan, many issues were resolved and/or
clarified.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Final GMP/EIS is now available, and
interested persons and organizations wishing to obtain the Final GMP/
EIS may retrieve the document online at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/
olym. The document is also available at these locations: Office of the
Superintendent, Olympic National Park, 600 East Park Avenue, Port
Angeles, Washington, 98362 (telephone requests taken at 360-565-3004);
the Olympic National Park Visitor Center at Port Angeles; Olympic
National Park-National Forest Information Station in Forks; and the Hoh
Rain Forest Visitor Center. The document will also be available for
inspection at the following area libraries: Daniel J. Evans Library,
Evergreen State College; Kitsap Regional Library, Bremerton branch;
North Olympic Library System at Clallam Bay, Forks, Port Angeles, and
Sequim; Peninsula College Library; Port Townsend Public Library and
Quilcene branch; Seattle Public Library; Tacoma Public Library;
Timberland Regional Library at Aberdeen, Amanda Park, Hoodsport, and
Hoquiam; University of Washington Library; William G. Reed Public
Library; and at the Wilson Library, Western Washington University.
[[Page 13566]]
Decision Process: The NPS will execute a Record of Decision (ROD)
no sooner than 30 days following publication by the Environmental
Protection Agency of its notice of filing of the Final Environmental
Impact Statement in the Federal Register. As a delegated EIS the
official responsible for final approval of the General Management Plan
is the Regional Director; subsequently the official responsible for
implementing the new plan would be the Superintendent, Olympic National
Park.
Dated: March 5, 2008.
Patricia L. Neubacher,
Acting Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
[FR Doc. E8-5045 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-KY-P