Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 224 / Monday, November 20, 2000 / Notices 69785

Battlefields and related Civil War

resources will be protected through the

combined efforts of the Foundation and

its partners. Visitor services and

interpretation will be focused at five

geographic groupings—clusters—of

battlefields, nearby towns, and other

visitor sites. Each cluster will include a

Civil War orientation center to interpret

the stories of that particular cluster

within the context of the larger District.

The clusters and other sites in the

District will be linked through

brochures, interpretive displays, and a

wayfinding system that emphasizes

historic routes.

The Foundation will represent the

varied interests of the District and serve

as the ‘‘lead managing partner’’ for

implementing the plan. As principal

partners, the Commonwealth of Virginia

and the NPS will serve on the

Foundation board and support its

operations and programs. The NPS will

also provide technical assistance

throughout the District.

In the Special Resource Study portion

of the plan, the NPS analyzed the

District and the battlefields and found

that Cedar Creek Battlefield—currently a

National Historic Landmark—meets the

criteria for inclusion in the National

Park System. The NPS will present the

study and supporting information to the

United States Congress for its

consideration.

The proposed action is also the

environmentally preferred alternative.

Relative to the other alternatives, this

alternative would cause the least

damage to the environment and best

protect, preserve, and enhance historic

and cultural resources in the District.

The Commission and the NPS

selected the proposed action for several

reasons. It was positively received by

those that attended the public meetings

and responded to the newsletter and

draft plan/EIS. It best fulfills the

legislative mandate, has the fewest

negative impacts, and generates the

greatest degree of local participation. In

addition, the proposed action

distributes the economic benefits of

tourism most evenly throughout the

District, creates the greatest degree of

local stewardship for battlefield

preservation, and offers opportunities to

tell the most complete story of all the

alternatives.

For further information or to receive

a complete copy of the Record of

Decision, contact: Shenandoah Valley

Battlefields NHD Commission, P.O. Box

897, 8895 Collins Drive, New Market,

Virginia 22844, (888) 689–4545.

Dated: October 26, 2000.

Marie Rust,

Northeast Regional Director, National Park

Service.

[FR Doc. 00–29554 Filed 11–17–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

Environmental Impact Statement;

Merced Wild and Scenic River

Comprehensive Management Plan;

Yosemite National Park, Madera and

Mariposa Counties, California;

Revision to Record of Decision

SUMMARY: The Department of the

Interior, National Park Service has

revised the original Record of Decision

for the Final Environmental Impact

Statement, Merced Wild and Scenic

River Comprehensive Management Plan,

Yosemite National Park. The Record of

Decision was originally signed on

August 9, 2000 and published in the

Federal Register on August 18, 2000.

The Revised Record of Decision is

designed to clarify statements regarding

the process to be used by the National

Park Service in complying with § 7 of

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and to

clarify the measurement of the river

corridor boundaries and the river

protection overlay. The Record of

Decision was issued after completion of

Draft and Final Environmental Impact

Statements for the Merced Wild and

Scenic River Comprehensive

Management Plan.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Pursuant to § 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L.

91–190, as amended) and the

regulations promulgated by the Council

on Environmental Quality (40 CFR Part

1500), and in accord with a ruling of the

U.S. District Court for the Eastern

District of California, the National Park

Service (NPS) prepared and circulated a

Draft and Final Environmental Impact

Statement for the Merced Wild and

Scenic River Comprehensive

Management Plan (‘‘Plan’’). The Plan

was designed to satisfy the Wild and

Scenic Rivers Act’s requirements for a

Comprehensive Management Plan. To

achieve this goal, the Plan presented

five alternatives for NPS stewardship of

an 81-mile segment of the 122 miles of

the Merced River designated as ‘‘Wild

and Scenic’’ by Congress in 1987. Each

of the alternatives presented a different

combination of seven management

elements to prescribe desired future

conditions, typical visitor activities and

experiences, and allowed park facilities

and management activities. The seven

management elements are: boundaries,

classifications, Outstandingly

Remarkable Values, a determination

process to comply with § 7 of the Act,

the River Protection Overlay,

management zoning, and the Visitor

Experience and Resource Protection

framework.

The Draft and Final Environmental

Impact Statements assessed the full

range of foreseeable environmental

consequences and identified all

practicable measures to avoid or

minimize environmental impacts. More

than 2,500 comments were received on

the Draft Environmental Impact

Statement and approximately 30

comments were received following the

release of the Final Environmental

Impact Statement (FEIS). All public

comments received were carefully

reviewed and considered prior to

making a decision on the Plan.

A Record of Decision on the Plan was

approved on August 9, 2000 and the

Notice of Approval of the Record of

Decision appeared in the Federal

Register on August 18, 2000 (65 FR

50565). In that Record of Decision, the

NPS adopted the Proposed Action

(Alternative 2), as described in the FEIS.

As explained in the original Record of

Decision, the primary feature that

distinguished Alternative 2 from the

other alternatives is the interplay of four

of its management elements:

boundaries, classifications, River

Protection Overlay and management

zoning. The NPS determined that

Alternative 2 would protect and

enhance the river’s ORVs while

allowing for appropriate levels and

types of visitor use and development.

II. Reason for Revision

The Record of Decision is being

revised to clarify that all statements in

the FEIS and Record of Decision

regarding the Army Corps of Engineers’

definition of the ‘‘ordinary high water

mark’’ shall reflect the regulatory

definition of that term as found in 33

CFR Section 328.3. This clarification

will eliminate text that inaccurately

summarized the definition of ordinary

high water mark as the 2.33 year

floodplain. The regulatory definition of

ordinary high water mark as published

in the Code of Federal Regulations does

not include any reference to the 2.33

year floodplain. Instead, the regulatory

definition states: ‘‘The term ‘‘ordinary

high water mark’’ means that line on the

shore established by the fluctuations of

water and indicated by physical

characteristics such as clear, natural line

69786 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 224 / Monday, November 20, 2000 / Notices

impressed on the bank, shelving,

changes in the character of soil,

destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the

presence of litter and debris, or other

appropriate means that consider the

characteristics of the surrounding

areas.’’

This regulatory definition will be

used by the NPS for measuring the

extent of the River Protection Overlay

and the river corridor boundaries. The

river corridor boundaries established by

this Plan begin at the ordinary high

water mark (as defined by the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers in 33 CFR

Section 328.3) and extend one-quarter

mile on each side of the river, except in

the El Portal Administrative Site where

the boundary extends out to the 100-

year floodplain or the extent of the River

Protection Overlay, whichever is

greater. Similarly, the River Protection

Overlay will be measured beginning

from the ordinary high water mark.

The Record of Decision is also being

revised to clarify statements in the FEIS

regarding the process to be used for

fulfilling the requirements of § 7 of the

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The

Merced River Plan/FEIS includes

statements that ‘‘Water resources

projects that have a direct and adverse

effect on the values for a designated

river must either be redesigned and

resubmitted for a subsequent § 7

determination, abandoned, or may

proceed following written notification

of the Secretary of the Interior and the

United States Congress.’’ This statement

inaccurately summarized the intent of

the NPS. The following process will be

used by the NPS for projects requiring

§ 7 review. Water resources projects

found to have a direct and adverse effect

on the values of this designated river

will be redesigned and resubmitted for

a subsequent § 7 determination or

abandoned. In the event that a project

can not be redesigned to avoid direct

and adverse effects on the values for

which the river was designated, the NPS

will either abandon the project or will

advise the Secretary of the Interior in

writing and report to Congress in

writing in accordance with § 7(a) of the

Act .

The NPS has reviewed these revisions

to determine whether there are any new

or different impacts associated with

these clarifications. The clarification

with regard to the § 7 process does not

diminish or change the NPS’s

obligations to comply with § 7 of the

Act, nor does it modify the steps to be

followed by the NPS in evaluating

whether a project would have a direct

and adverse affect on river values. The

clarification with regard to the

definition of ordinary high water is

intended to more accurately reflect the

regulatory definition of that term. This

clarification does not alter the extent of

the river corridor boundaries, and it

does not change the use of the River

Protection Overlay as a tool to protect

areas immediately adjacent to the river.

Because these revisions are minor

clarifications and do not result in

changes to the management elements

contained in Alternative 2, they do not

result in substantial changes relevant to

environmental concerns. These

modifications are also not in response to

significant new information.

Copies: Interested parties desiring to

obtain a copy of the Revised Record of

Decision may contact the

Superintendent, Yosemite National

Park, P.O. Box 577, Yosemite, California

95389 (or via telephone request at (209)

372–0201). The complete document will

also be posted on the Yosemite National

Park Webpage (http://www.nps.gov/

yose/planning).

Dated: November 3, 2000.

John J. Reynolds,

Regional Director, Pacific West.

[FR Doc. 00–29550 Filed 11–17–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

Furnace Creek Water Management

Plan, Death Valley National Park, Inyo

County, California; Notice of Intent to

Prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement

SUMMARY: Pursuant to §102(2)(c) of the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (Pub. L. 91–190) and Council on

Environmental Quality regulations (40

CFR 1502.9(c)), the National Park

Service intends to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement for a

water management plan for the Furnace

Creek area in Death Valley National

Park. The overall purpose of the plan is

to provide for maintaining a sustainable

water source meeting appropriate

human use needs in the Furnace Creek

area, while also protecting unique

natural resource values in the area.

Upgrading the water supply system is

necessary because the existing system is

subject to water quality problems. In

addition, due to fluctuations in water

volumes delivered by the current

system, it does not provide a reliable

supply of water.

Background: The objectives of the

Furnace Creek Water Management Plan

include developing a water collection

strategy which will: (i) Serve the potable

and non-potable Furnace Creek area

human use water needs, including the

NPS, the AmFac Inn and Ranch Resort,

and the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe; (ii)

provide for protecting existing

biological resource values in the

Travertine-Texas Springs area, as well

as facilitating potential restoration of

riparian and aquatic habitats, in a

manner compatible with addressing

existing governmental obligations to

provide water according to extant

amounts.

The current Furnace Creek water

collection system was built in the mid1970’s and is nearing the end of its

useful life span. The need for replacing

this collection system now arises

because the current infrastructure

undergoes unpredictable fluctuations in

the volume of water available for human

use, and produces a quality of water that

occasionally makes it difficult to

achieve state water drinking standards.

Since the facilities were originally

constructed, inventories of waterdependent plants and animals and the

discovery of several new endemic

species in the local springs have created

greater awareness of the biological value

of local wetland and riparian habitats.

In addition, completion of this EIS

process is consistent with both the

existing and draft revision of the park

General Management Plan, as well as

legislation regarding the Timbisha

Shoshone Homeland.

Planning and Public Involvement:

During the forthcoming conservation

planning and environmental impact

analysis process, alternatives and any

requisite mitigation measures will be

developed that will identify a

reasonable range of options for

providing a reliable and safe water

supply system for Furnace Creek. The

process will be conducted in

consultation with State and local

governments, organizations, Tribes, and

interested members of the public. The

Furnace Creek Water Management Plan

will be prepared by the NPS; its

anticipated that cooperating agencies for

preparation of the EIS will be identified

within 60 days of publication of this

Notice in the Federal Register. The

public will be invited to participate

from the outset of the scoping process

through completion of the draft and

final EIS. To initiate this collaboration,

three scoping meetings will be held

during winter, 2001 as follows: January

30 (Pahrump), January 31 (Death Valley

National Park), and February 1