75566 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 242 / Friday, December 17, 2004 / Notices 

back out of line of sight from the river, 

fewer, but thicker conductors); 

Alternative 2: Single circuit 345kV 

overhead on 120–130′ single steel poles, 

underground 161kV, transition 

structures at overhead to underground 

changeover; 

Alternative 3: 161kV upgraded on 85–

95′ steel poles, 345kv underground, 

transition structures at underground to 

overhead changeover; 

Alternative 4: 345kv and 161kV 

underground, transition structures at 

underground to overhead changeover. 

The NPS preferred alternative is 

alternative 1: Long-span Option. 

Persons wishing to comment on the 

FEIS may do so by any one of several 

methods. They may mail comments to 

Superintendent, Saint Croix National 

Scenic Riverway, P.O. Box 708, 401 

Hamilton Street, St. Croix Falls, 

Wisconsin 54024, Attention: Jill 

Medland. They also may comment via email to sacn_aw_row_eis@nps.gov

(include name and return address in the 

e-mail message). Finally, they may 

hand-deliver comments to Riverway 

Headquarters, St. Croix National Scenic 

Riverway, 401 Hamilton Street, St. Croix 

Falls, Wisconsin 54024. 

The NPS’s practice is to make 

comments, including names and home 

addresses of respondents, available for 

public review during regular business 

hours. Individual respondents may 

request that we withhold their home 

address from the record, which we will 

honor to the extent allowable by law. 

There also may be circumstances in 

which we would withhold from the 

record a respondent’s identity, as 

allowable by law. If you wish us to 

withhold your name and/or address, 

you must state this prominently at the 

beginning of your comment. However, 

we will not consider anonymous 

comments. We will make all 

submissions from organizations or 

businesses, and from individuals 

identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses available for 

public inspection in their entirety. 

The responsible official is Ernest 

Quintana, Midwest Regional Director, 

National Park Service.

Dated: October 18, 2004. 

Alan M. Hutchings, 

Acting Regional Director, Midwest Region.

[FR Doc. 04–27610 Filed 12–16–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–96–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service 

Notice of Intent To Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

the General Management Plan for Fort 

Raleigh National Historic Site, Manteo, 

NC

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) 

of the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 and National Park Service 

policy in Director’s Order Number 2 

(Park Planning) and Director’s Order 

Number 12 (Conservation Planning, 

Environmental Impact Analysis, and 

Decision-making) the National Park 

Service will prepare an Environmental 

Impact Statement for the General 

Management Plan for Fort Raleigh 

National Historic Site. The authority for 

publishing this notice is contained in 40 

CFR 1506.6. 

The statement will assess potential 

environmental impacts associated with 

various types and levels of visitor use 

and resources management within the 

National Historic Site. This General 

Management Plan and Environmental 

Impact Statement are being prepared in 

response to the requirements of the 

National Parks and Recreation Act of 

1978, Pub. L. 95–625. The National Park 

Service is currently accepting comments 

from interested parties on issues, 

concerns, and suggestions pertinent to 

the management of Fort Raleigh. 

Suggestions and ideas for managing 

the cultural and natural resources and 

visitor experiences at Fort Raleigh are 

encouraged. Comments may be 

submitted in writing to the address 

listed at the end of this notice or 

through the GMP Web site, which is 

linked to the park’s Web site at http://

www.nps.gov/fora.

The National Park Service will 

publish periodic newsletters on the 

GMP Web site to present scoping issues 

and preliminary management concepts 

to the public as they are developed. 

Public meetings to present draft 

management concepts will be 

conducted in the local area. Specific 

locations, dates, and times will be 

announced in local media and on the 

GMP Web site. 

Please note that due to public 

disclosure requirements, the National 

Park Service, if requested, is required to 

make the names and addresses of those 

who submit written comments public. 

Anonymous comments will not be 

considered. However, individual 

respondents may request that we 

withhold their names and addresses 

from the public record. If you wish to 

withhold your name and/or address, 

you must state that request prominently 

at the beginning of your comment. We 

will make all submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public inspection in their entirety.

DATES: Locations, dates, and times of 

public scoping meetings will be 

published in local newspapers and may 

also be obtained by contacting the 

National Park Service Southeast 

Regional Office, Planning and 

Compliance Division. This information 

will also be published on the General 

Management Plan Web site for Fort 

Raleigh.

ADDRESSES: Scoping suggestions should 

be submitted to the following address to 

ensure adequate consideration by the 

Service: Superintendent, Fort Raleigh 

National Historic Site, 1401 National 

Park Drive, Manteo, North Carolina, 

27954. Telephone: 252–473–2111, ext. 

150.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Superintendent, Fort Raleigh National 

Historic Site, 1401 National Park Drive, 

Manteo, North Carolina, 27954. 

Telephone: 252–473–2111, ext. 150.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Draft 

and Final General Management Plan 

and Environmental Impact Statement 

will be made available to all known 

interested parties and appropriate 

agencies. Full public participation by 

Federal, State, and local agencies as 

well as other concerned organizations 

and private citizens is invited 

throughout the preparation process of 

this document. 

The responsible official for this 

Environmental Impact Statement is 

Patricia A. Hooks, Regional Director, 

Southeast Region, National Park 

Service, 100 Alabama Street SW., 1924 

Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

Dated: October 28, 2004. 

Patricia A. Hooks, 

Regional Director, Southeast Region.

[FR Doc. 04–27609 Filed 12–16–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–KA–P

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

National Park Service 

Notice of Intent To Prepare a General 

Management Plan and Environmental 

Impact Statement

SUMMARY: 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

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 242 / Friday, December 17, 2004 / Notices 75567

Environmental Impact Statement (GMP/

EIS) for the George Washington 

Birthplace National Monument, 

Westmoreland County, Virginia. The 

park contains 550 acres that comprise 

significant portions of the 17th and 18th 

century Washington family plantation 

holdings, including the site of the home 

where George Washington was born and 

spent his early years. Prepared 

byplanners in the NPS Northeast 

Region, with assistance from advisors 

and consultants, the GMP/EIS will 

propose a long-term approach to 

managing the George Washington 

BirthplaceNational Monument.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Superintendent, George Washington 

Birthplace National Monument, (804) 

224–1732

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Consistent 

with the site’s mission, NPS policy, 

andother laws and regulations, 

alternatives will be developed to guide 

the management of the siteover the next 

15 to 20 years. The alternatives will 

incorporate various zoning and 

managementprescription to ensure 

resource preservation and public 

enjoyment of the site. The 

environmentalconsequences that could 

result from implementing the various 

alternatives will be evaluated inthe 

plan. Impact topics will include cultural 

and natural resources, visitor 

experience, parkoperations, the 

socioeconomic environment, 

impairment, and sustainability. The 

public will beinvited to express 

opinions about the management of the 

site early in the process through 

publicmeetings and other media; and 

will have an opportunity to review and 

comment on a draftGMP/EIS. Following 

public review processes outlined under 

NEPA, the final plan will 

becomeofficial, authorizing 

implementation of a preferred 

alternative. The target date for the 

Record ofDecision is December 2007.

Dated: November 22, 2004. 

Vidal Martinez, 

Superintendent, George Washington 

Birthplace National Monument.

[FR Doc. 04–27606 Filed 12–17–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–52–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service 

Notice of Intent To Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement for an 

Elk Management Plan, Wind Cave 

National Park, SD

AGENCY: National Park Service, 

Department of the Interior.

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), 

the National Park Service (NPS) is 

preparing an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) for an Elk Management 

Plan for Wind Cave National Park 

(WICA), South Dakota. An elk 

management plan is needed to manage 

the elk population within established 

acceptable levels, to identify a range of 

elk management strategies that are 

compatible with long-term protection of 

other park resources and natural 

ecosystems and processes, and to test 

for and manage disease situations in the 

elk population. A number of factors 

contribute to the need for this plan. The 

elk population within the park has 

fluctuated since reintroduction and 

dictated both lethal and translocation 

control in the past. Due to the 

insufficient number of predators and the 

limited movement of elk in and out of 

the park, the elk population will likely 

continue to grow unchecked. Excessive 

browsing caused by high densities of elk 

may adversely affect mixed-grass prairie 

and other forage, as well as cultural 

resources in the park. Furthermore, this 

plan is needed because the NPS has the 

responsibility to manage the elk 

population within the park at levels that 

are compatible with park goals.

DATES: The National Park Service (NPS) 

intends to conduct public scoping at 

locations in South Dakota, including 

Pierre, Sioux Falls, Rapid City, Custer, 

and Hot Springs. Public scoping is 

intended to identify issues and concerns 

that should be addressed in the 

development of an Elk Management 

Plan for WICA. To be most helpful to 

the scoping process, comments should 

be received within 60 days of the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. See details for sending 

comments in SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION below. Please check local 

newspapers, the WICA Web site at http:/

/www.nps.gov/wica, or contact the name 

listed below to find out when and where 

these open houses will be held and to 

view draft documents and other current 

information regarding elk management 

and the EIS. In addition to this scoping 

process, there will be additional 

opportunities to comment on the plan 

throughout the planning process, 

including the draft and final document.

ADDRESSES: Information will be 

available for public review and 

comment at WICA headquarters located 

14 miles north of Hot Springs, SD. The 

address is: Wind Cave National Park, 

RR1, Box 190, Hot Springs, SD 57747.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom 

Farrell, Public Information Officer, or 

Linda Stoll, Superintendent, at 605–

745–4600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NPS 

seeks to complete an EIS to address elk 

management at WICA. Section 4.4.2 of 

the NPS Management Policies (2001) 

provides for the active management of 

native animals when management of a 

population is necessary because it 

occurs in unnaturally high or low 

numbers because of human influence. 

An elk management strategy is needed 

at WICA because past and current 

actions within and beyond the park 

have created conditions that allow the 

WICA elk population to increase with 

little or no control. These conditions 

include the insufficient number of elk 

predators, the limited effectiveness of 

public hunting outside of the park as a 

population control method for elk that 

range primarily within the park, lack of 

significant winter kill and other 

environmentally-caused elk mortalities, 

high reproductive and survival rates, 

and the discontinuation of translocating 

elk from the park. 

Elk were reintroduced to the park in 

1913 to restore an extirpated native 

species. The park is surrounded by 

thirty-seven miles of 7 foot high and 

four miles of 4.5 foot high woven-wire 

fence. This fence was designed to allow 

for movement of most wildlife, yet 

confines bison within the park. Wolves 

and bears have been extirpated since the 

late 1800s, and effective natural 

predation on ungulates is limited to that 

which occurs by mountain lions, 

coyotes and bobcats. Since elk 

reintroduction in 1913, the population 

has doubled approximately every 3 

years. Research was conducted in the 

mid-1960s and again in 2003 to provide 

insight into the forage requirements of 

elk and other grazers in the park. The 

resulting data, which considers the 

forage needs of all ungulates in the park, 

suggested the park could maintain 

approximately 350–400 elk. Since 

reintroduction, the population has 

exceeded 400 at various times, 

prompting the removal of animals by 

both lethal and translocation means. In 

the fall of 2002, chronic wasting disease 

(CWD) was found in the park. The NPS 

policy dictates that translocation of elk 

may only occur if the animals are free 

of disease, which removes the 

possibility of translocation of animals 

from WICA. Currently, the elk herd 

numbers about 700, exceeding the 

maximum number of animals that data 

suggest can be sustained long-term 

without negatively affecting other park 

resources. 

A determination of the effects of the 

elk management plan will be conducted