[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 10, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17441-17445]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-8700]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


General Management Plan Abbreviated Final Environmental Impact 
Statement Mojave National Preserve, California; Notice of Approval of 
Record of Decision

SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior, National Park Service has 
approved a Record of Decision for the General Management Plan and 
Abbreviated Final Environmental Impact Statement for Mojave National 
Preserve. The Record of Decision details the overall background of the 
conservation planning effort, a description of the decision made, 
synopses of alternatives considered, identification of the 
environmentally preferable alternative, the basis for the decision, 
findings on impairment of park resources and values, a discussion of 
measures to minimize environmental harm, and an overview of public and 
agency involvement in the information and analysis supporting 
preparation of the environmental impact statement (EIS).
    The impetus for this planning effort was the passage of the 
California Desert Protection Act (CDPA) on October 31, 1994, which 
transferred over 3 million acres of California desert lands from the 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to the National Park Service and 
designated nearly 8 million acres of Wilderness on NPS and BLM lands. 
CDPA created Mojave National Preserve (Preserve) and redesignated Death 
Valley and Joshua Tree National Monuments as national parks. In 
response to anticipated changes in public lands management in the 
California desert, as well as the listing of the desert tortoise, 
increasing development, various public use pressures, and other 
factors, the National Park Service, BLM, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (USFWS) desert managers decided to prepare updated or new 
management plans.

Decision (Selected Action)

    As detailed in the Record of Decision, the National Park Service 
(NPS) will implement Alternative 1, the proposed general management 
plan (described in the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement and 
General Management Plan, dated July 2000, and as amended by the 
Abbreviated Final Environmental Impact Statement and General Management 
Plan, dated June 2001). Some adjustments to the hunting portion of the 
proposal have been made as a result of concerns expressed during the 
no-action period and in consultation with the California Department of 
Fish and Game and the USFWS. Changes in the hunting regulations will 
require further regulatory action. Cottontails and jackrabbits would be 
added to the list of species that may be hunted, and the NPS would seek 
to adjust the seasons to allow hunting only from September through 
January, in keeping with the goals of the Desert Tortoise Recovery 
Plan. The one-mile safety zone around developed areas has been dropped 
(except for Kelso Depot and Kelso Dunes) in favor or existing State and 
County regulations of 150 yards. The language regarding safety zones 
will be modified to adopt State and County regulations. The NPS would 
seek special regulations for the Preserve through the California Fish 
and Game Commission to implement the proposed hunting changes.
    The selected plan was found to contain the best mix of programs, 
strategies, and actions for managing the Preserve, given varying 
mandates and diverse public opinion. The new General Management Plan 
(GMP) envisions the Preserve as a cultural landscape and natural 
environment (i.e., an arid ecosystem influenced by successive eras of 
human use dating back in historic and prehistoric time), where native 
desert ecosystems and processes are restored and protected for present 
and future generations. Protecting and perpetuating native species in a 
self-sustaining environment is a primary long-term goal. The GMP seeks 
to manage the Preserve to perpetuate the sense of discovery and 
adventure that currently exists, minimizing new development inside the 
Preserve to avoid proliferation of directional signs and new 
campgrounds or interpretive exhibits. The GMP envisions adjacent 
``gateway'' communities as providing most visitor support services. The 
GMP also seeks to retain current opportunities for roadside and 
backcountry camping, and access to backcountry via existing primitive 
roads, consistent with the NPS mission. Planning of actions consistent 
with Wilderness will also be undertaken. Rehabilitation and partial 
restoration of the historic Kelso Depot and its use as a museum and 
interpretive facility is planned. The GMP also recognizes obligations 
to continue grazing, hunting,

[[Page 17442]]

and existence of major utility corridors, where specifically charged to 
do so by Congress. The GMP acknowledges landowner capacity to develop 
private property, provided such development is not detrimental to the 
integrity of the Preserve or otherwise incompatible with the CDPA. 
Nearly 130,000 acres within the Preserve are in nonfederal ownership, 
and the GMP sets a goal of seeking funding to purchase property from 
willing sellers.

Other Alternatives Considered

    In addition to Alternative 1 (selected actions highlighted above), 
other alternatives considered include existing management, and an 
optional management approach. The existing management alternative 
(Alternative 2) describes the continuation of current management 
strategies. It is commonly referred to as the no-action or status quo 
alternative. It provides a baseline from which to compare other 
alternatives, to evaluate the magnitude of proposed changes, and to 
measure the environmental effects of those changes. This no-action 
concept follows the guidance of the Council on Environmental Quality 
(CEQ), which describes such alternatives as no change from the existing 
management direction or level of management intensity. However, an 
agency not acting to adopt a general management plan does not mean that 
no management actions are taken. Since the Preserve is a relatively new 
unit of the national park system and no general management plan was in 
place, management of the unit has been done in accord with applicable 
federal regulations, NPS servicewide management policies, and subject-
specific manuals and guidelines.
    Consistent with the no-action alternative, no comprehensive 
cultural or natural resource protection program is in place. However, 
the Preserve has hired several staff, and funding for managing some 
programs, such as minerals management and burro removal, has been 
received. Existing staff cooperate on resource inventory and monitoring 
with neighboring desert parks, and staff also are involved with the 
Molycorp spill abatement, the Cadiz groundwater storage proposal, and 
the AT&T cable removal project. Such efforts are reactive to concerns 
after they arise, rather than being a part of a comprehensive program 
that is planned and funded. Existing visitor-administrative support 
services and facilities are being maintained in current locations, 
water systems have been improved, and vault toilets and picnic tables 
have been installed. There have been few improvements to existing 
structures and no change in road maintenance, although some minor road 
improvements have been done. No significant changes in existing 
recreation use would occur under this alternative. No action has 
occurred to protect Kelso Depot from fire or earthquakes, although 
planning for rehabilitation and partial restoration is underway, and 
the building is secured to prevent vandalism. Efforts continue for 
obtaining funding to acquire property from willing sellers and for 
properties where development is potentially detrimental to the 
integrity of the Preserve or otherwise incompatible with the CDPA.
    The optional approach (Alternative 3) varies from the selected 
action in several respects, not limited to those noted below. 
Alternative 3 identifies additional tortoise recovery measures, 
including fencing of 100 miles of paved roads prevent tortoise from 
crossing roadways, designation of critical habitat in the Preserve as 
Desert Wildlife Management Areas (DWMA), not allowing dogs off leash 
for any purpose in DWMA's, permanently reducing the speed limit on park 
paved roads to 45 mph, and immediate action to begin raven removals. 
Areas of designated desert tortoise critical habitat currently subject 
to cattle grazing would be converted to ephemeral pastures and grazing 
would not be allowed on these pastures until ephemeral forage is at 230 
lbs. per acre (and perennial AUM's reduced accordingly). In lieu of 
fencing the entire Clark Mountain unit boundary to exclude feral 
burros, this alternative proposes to fence springs and other water 
sources to limit attracting burros from adjacent BLM lands. Hunting of 
all species allowed under State law could occur from July to January. 
Power drill usage by rock climbers outside designated Wilderness would 
be allowed, and new bolts could be installed in Wilderness using hand 
tools. Recreational rock climbing would not be restricted in the 
vicinity of the Hole-in-the-Wall visitor center, except for the 
placement of bolts.
    Alternative 3 would not restore the Kelso Depot; it would be 
modified to provide improved protection from fire and earthquakes, 
permanent comfort stations would be added, and exterior interpretive 
exhibits and panels would be installed. Existing information centers in 
Baker and Needles would be expanded in cooperation with other agencies, 
a visitor contact center would be established in the Cima area, and the 
NPS would seek to locate an interpretive ranger at Soda Springs to 
provide tours of the area.
    Alternative 3 provides significantly more infrastructure inside the 
Preserve than any other alternative by increasing the number of sites 
at the existing Midhills and Hole-in-the-Wall campgrounds, and by 
developing three new semi-primitive campgrounds. This alternative also 
would construct a central field operations facility in the Cima area to 
provide office space, shop and storage space, housing and fire engine 
garage space for all park functions, and provide for constructing new 
employee housing throughout the Preserve to place employees closer to 
work sites. Emphasis would also be placed on constructing several 
formal wayside exhibits, interpretive displays, and formal hiking 
trails. However, adding such infrastructure was deemed to be 
inconsistent with the goals of retaining the Preserve visitor 
experience as it is now, which was also espoused by the Advisory 
Commission and local communities and reflected in public comment.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

    Alternatives which are ``environmentally preferable'' are 
considered by CEQ to be those actions or/and programs that in 
combination will entail least damage to the biological and physical 
environment, and which best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, 
cultural, and natural resources. Goals that characterize 
``environmentally preferable'' were originally set forth in Sec. 101 of 
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The environmentally 
preferable alternative for the Mojave National Preserve General 
Management Plan is based on these national environmental policy goals.
    Alternative 1 was found to best realize the provisions of the 
national environmental policy stated in NEPA. This GMP will protect and 
enhance natural and cultural resources by laying out strategies, 
planning, inventorying and monitoring, and restoring disturbed 
ecosystems and historic resources. These actions will attain the widest 
range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, 
preserve important resources, and maintain a variety of individual 
choice for Preserve visitors. It will implement recovery measures for 
the threatened desert tortoise, fully removes exotic feral burros, 
presents strategies for management of grazing, mining and hunting, and 
provides for the rehabilitation and partial restoration of the 
nationally significant Kelso Depot. Alternative 1 also best reflects 
the expressed interests of the public in minimizing development in the

[[Page 17443]]

Preserve that would detract from the setting and sense of self-
discovery and adventure that currently exists. A summary of the 
comparative analysis of this alternative and others considered with 
respect to ``environmentally preferred'' is detailed in the Record of 
Decision.

Basis for Decision

    The selected GMP provides overall direction for managing resources, 
facilities and development, and use of the Preserve. The GMP presents a 
logical, systematic and proactive approach to management of the 
Preserve in compliance with NPS laws, regulations and policies. The 
rationale for selection of alternative 1 over the no-action 
(alternative 2) is based on the environmental impacts that would be 
lessened by seeking funds and implementing activities identified in the 
proposed plan. Public comment was also considered in formulating the 
NPS preferred approach over alternative 3; in particular, funding of 
full removal of burros, implementing Desert Tortoise and Mojave Tui 
chub recovery actions, establishment of a cultural resource protection 
program, and development of visitor information centers and 
interpretive media to inform the public on desert ecosystems and 
protection measures. In addition, a strategy is outlined for the 
interim management of cattle grazing.
    Protect and Enhance Cultural and Natural Resources: The selected 
GMP identifies goals and strategies to inventory and protect, where 
possible, air quality, visibility, night sky and natural ambient sound. 
These resources are key elements of the desert environment that are 
critical to an enjoyable visit to the Preserve. The GMP strives to 
protect water resources and water rights by seeking to restore damaged 
natural water sources and protect groundwater. The GMP describes 
cultural resource protection and management responsibilities, and 
proposes to inventory, preserve and protect paleontological, 
geological, cave and soil resources. Research would be encouraged to 
improve the means by which enhanced protection could be accomplished. 
These proactive strategies would also yield valuable interpretive and 
scientific data.
    The GMP provides a more proactive approach to perpetuate native 
plant life (such as vascular plants, ferns, mosses, algae, fungi, and 
bacteria) as critical components of natural desert ecosystems. The GMP 
calls for inventory of all native plants and wildlife, and seeks to 
restore disturbed ecosystems, enhance habitat for sensitive species, 
eliminate exotic species where feasible and establish monitoring 
programs to serve as early warning systems for health of the system. 
Two key components of the natural resource protection strategy include 
the complete removal of all feral burros and the adoption of threatened 
desert tortoise and endangered Mojave tui chub recovery strategies. 
Since the burro is an exotic species and its presence is inconsistent 
with NPS management policies and the goal of a native, self-sustaining 
ecosystem, the GMP would result in fewer impacts to natural desert 
ecosystems. The complete fencing of Clark Mountains would further 
control impacts to natural resources from burros.
    The GMP addresses numerous activities and strategies for 
implementing the desert tortoise recovery plan, and adopts 
recommendations of the 1994 Recovery Plan where feasible and not 
inconsistent with the CDPA. In addition, the NPS is to manage desert 
tortoise habitat inside the Preserve according to the recommendations 
of the Recovery Plan in partnership with BLM in an identical manner as 
the BLM's DWMA-classified lands. All drivers of vehicles are to be 
informed about tortoise presence, and the need for reduced speeds in 
limited areas or during spring rainy days when tortoises are more 
likely to be out on the roads. It's anticipated that this approach 
would result in more compliance with speed reductions than would 
universal speed limits throughout the paved road network. A coordinated 
interagency strategy is to be implemented desert-wide to foster greater 
consistency in dealing with raven populations throughout the area, 
potentially benefiting much more tortoise habitat. Finally, under the 
GMP cattle grazing could occur in critical habitat, except from March 
15 to June 15, even in the absence of ephemeral forage, provided 
perennial utilization is below 30% (as determined through annual 
monitoring protocols). During this period desert tortoise are typically 
in their burrows.
    The GMP outlines interim standards that must be followed by 
ranchers while a detailed grazing management plan is being developed by 
the Preserve. It also states the NPS preference to permanently retire 
grazing by working with third party conservation groups to acquire 
permits from willing sellers and donate them back to the NPS. The 
strategy also limits cattle grazing in desert tortoise critical habitat 
whenever sufficient ephemeral and perennial forage is not present. The 
GMP provides the greatest level of protection for park resources 
consistent with varying conflicting mandates: to allow grazing (CDPA); 
to remove grazing from critical habitat (Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan 
recommendation); and the NPS Organic Act to * * * conserve the scenery 
and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein * * * 
unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.''
    Enhance Visitor Experience: The GMP provides for visitor use and 
enjoyment while encouraging opportunities for development in gateway 
communities. The public and advisory commission supported this 
direction rather than concentrating new visitor support facilities and 
ancillary infrastructure inside the Preserve. The GMP retains existing 
facilities, and even improves some, but would limit any new development 
in lieu of relying on gateway communities for visitor facilities. The 
GMP sets forth the goal that the Preserve remain a primitive place of 
self-discovery with new facilities primarily in gateway communities, 
but also calls for restoring the Kelso Depot to be used as a visitor 
center.
    The GMP entails continuing recreational climbing activity while 
providing for resource protection by eliminating the use of power 
drills and limiting the replacement of anchors in wilderness areas. 
This also reduces visibility of climbing features by imposing 
restrictions on leaving of climbing support apparatus and blending of 
anchors. The GMP protects bighorn sheep during lambing through climbing 
limits on Clark Mountain at certain times of the year. These management 
actions would reduce impacts from climbing on park resources more than 
either the no action (under which none of these restrictions would 
occur) or optional approach (which would allow power drill use outside 
wilderness and would not limit replacement of existing bolts and other 
fixed anchors). The GMP enhances visitor enjoyment by providing for 
potential use of commercial guided tours on the Mojave Road for 
visitors not having an appropriate vehicle.
    The GMP most effectively reconciles diverse public concerns 
relating to hunting by regulated hunting for upland game birds and big 
game during their established state seasons, and a limited season for 
small game (cottontails and jackrabbits only) consistent with desert 
tortoise recovery and the mission of the NPS to protect wildlife for 
future generations. Hunting throughout the Preserve is retained for 
most game species under state law, while eliminating non-game and 
furbearer (predator) hunting. The GMP more fully achieves the intent of 
the Recovery Plan

[[Page 17444]]

with regard to hunting in the Preserve. USFWS has determined that small 
game hunting could be allowed, along with upland game birds and big 
game, without substantially altering the analysis of effects on the 
desert tortoise in the biological opinion.
    Provide Effective Operations: The GMP emphasizes maximum use of 
existing structures and provides for limited new construction of 
facilities inside the Preserve, and proposes to use existing and 
acquired structures, improving and upgrading them where appropriate. 
Housing obtained via grazing permit acquisitions would be utilized for 
employee housing and interpretive facilities in order to provide onsite 
maintenance and security of the facilities. The GMP incurs the least 
impacts to currently undisturbed desert habitat and cultural landscape 
of the park, while still providing needed administrative facilities.
    In summary, the selected GMP (Alternative 1) includes the most 
actions that are beneficial to the cultural and natural resources of 
Mojave and to the enjoyment of the Preserve. It is also the most 
responsive alternative to public input received during scoping and 
alternative development. The one exception is on hunting. Hunters 
generally supported alternative 2, while a substantial number of other 
commenters wanted hunting eliminated completely, an option not 
represented in the DEIS because of the CDPA mandate. A comparison of 
decision rationales pertaining to all three alternatives is detailed in 
the Record of Decision.

Findings on Impairment of Park Resources and Values

    The NPS may not allow the impairment of park resources and values 
unless directly and specifically provided for by legislation or by the 
proclamation establishing the park. Impairment that is prohibited by 
the NPS Organic Act and the General Authorities Act is an impact that 
would harm the integrity of park resources or values, including 
opportunities that otherwise would be present for enjoyment of those 
resources or values (NPS Management Policies 2001). This policy does 
not prohibit impacts to park resources and values. The NPS has the 
discretion to allow a limited degree of impact when necessary and 
appropriate to fulfill the purposes of a park, so long as the impacts 
do not constitute impairment. In the case of the Preserve, it is noted 
that human activity and past development have resulted in the ongoing 
disruption of natural systems and processes for many years.
    The NPS has determined that implementing Alternative 1 will not 
constitute an impairment to the Preserve's resources and values. This 
conclusion is based on thorough analysis of the environmental impacts 
described in the Revised Draft EIS/GMP, the Abbreviated Final EIS/GMP, 
with due consideration of public and agency comments and relevant 
research (pursuant to direction in NPS Management Policies, section 
1.4). While the GMP may entail some minor negative impacts, in all 
cases these adverse impacts are the result of proactive strategies 
intended to quickly implement the NPS mission, policies and regulations 
in the management of the Preserve. None of the selected actions would 
result in impacts that would impair the integrity of park resources or 
values, including opportunities that would otherwise be present for the 
enjoyment of those resources or values. Overall, the GMP results in 
major benefits to park resources and values, opportunities for their 
enjoyment, and it does not result in their impairment.
    The collective actions encompassed in Alternative 1 will serve as a 
means to manage the Preserve in a manner that would result in a 
protected native desert ecosystem that functions without interference 
from human activities, while allowing visitor use and Congressionally 
mandated resource consumptive activities. While some of these 
activities could result in resource impacts that seem contrary to the 
NPS preservation mission (e.g. hunting, grazing, mining), Congress 
specifically provides for these activities in the CDPA, still subject 
to other applicable laws and regulations. For example, any future 
mining operations would be required to undergo NPS review and 
environmental impact analysis under 36 CFR Part 9, Subpart A. A grazing 
management plan would be developed to manage cattle grazing activities 
so that park resources are protected. Constructing wayside exhibits, 
maintaining existing developments, or rehabilitating Kelso Depot could 
create minor impacts on some resources locally, but would not result in 
impairment. A summary of the comparative analysis of this alternative 
and others considered with respect to ``impairment'' is detailed in the 
Record of Decision.

Measures To Minimize Environmental Harm

    The NPS has investigated all practical means to avoid or minimize 
environmental impacts that could result from implementing the selected 
action. The measures are incorporated into Alternative 1, and are 
addressed in both the Revised Draft EIS/GMP and Abbreviated Final EIS/
GMP. A consistent set of desert tortoise mitigation measures would be 
applied to actions that result from this plan (see Appendix E in 
Revised Draft EIS/GMP). Monitoring and enforcement programs will 
oversee the implementation of mitigation measures. These programs will 
assure compliance monitoring; biological and cultural resource 
protection; traffic management, noise, and dust abatement; noxious weed 
control; pollution prevention measures; visitor safety and education; 
and other mitigation measures. Mitigation measures will also be applied 
to future actions that are guided by this plan. In addition, the NPS 
will conduct appropriate compliance reviews (i.e., National 
Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, National Historic 
Preservation Act, Wilderness Act, and so forth) for all future actions.

Background of Public and Interagency Involvement

    Immediately following enactment of CDPA on October 31, the Preserve 
had no existing management plans or general ``blueprint'', under which 
more detailed activity or implementation plans could occur. While not 
specific in nature, the new GMP focuses on purposes of the Preserve, 
its significant attributes, its mission in relation to the overall 
mission of the NPS, what activities are appropriate within these 
constraints, and resource protection strategies. It also provides 
guidelines for visitor use and development of facilities for visitor 
enjoyment and administration of the preserve. The goal of the GMP is to 
best manage the new unit to meet the Congressional intent as expressed 
in the CDPA and the mission of the NPS. It was the stated intention of 
this conservation planning effort to explore only alternatives that 
would result in an implementable management plan for the Preserve. 
Alternatives were ruled out of full consideration if they needed 
legislation before they could be implemented, are contrary to specific 
Congressional direction, were inconsistent with NPS regulations or 
policy, or could be financially infeasible--these would not serve the 
need of creating an immediate management plan for this new unit. These 
were among the considerations weighed in developing the purpose and 
need section for the EIS.
    The conservation planning process began in 1995 with the selection 
of a GMP/EIS planning team, which was stationed at the Preserve 
headquarters in

[[Page 17445]]

Barstow. The Notice of Intent for this effort was published in the 
Federal Register on September 5, 1995 announcing the beginning of the 
conservation planning process. The planning team conducted 20 public 
scoping meetings in September 1995 and April 1997 to gather information 
about public concerns and issues on management direction for the 
Preserve and BLM lands. In addition, a number of agency scoping 
meetings were also held. From this data and meetings with interested 
parties (such as county departments, special interest groups, state 
agencies, Native American tribes, etc.) and discussions with NPS and 
BLM staff, proposed management plans were developed.
    In September 1998 the Mojave National Preserve Draft Environmental 
Impact Statement and General Management Plan was released for public 
review. Approximately 450 printed and 100 CD-ROM copies of the Draft 
EIS/GMP were distributed for review. The entire document was also 
posted on the Internet with links from the park's homepage and the 
Northern and Eastern Mojave planning page. A notice of filing of the 
Draft EIS/GMP was published in the Federal Register by the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on September 11, 1998 (FR 48727). 
Written comments were accepted from September 11, 1998 through January 
15, 1999, a period of 127 days. Eleven public meetings were held in 
October 1998 throughout the planning region of southern California and 
southern Nevada. In addition, the planning team attended and 
participated in numerous meetings of the Mojave Advisory Commission to 
obtain their feedback, concerns, and direction regarding the 
development of the general management plan. The NPS received 
approximately 390 comment letters from government agencies, tribes, 
interest groups, and individuals. In addition, members of environmental 
groups (National Parks and Conservation Association, The Sierra Club, 
and The Wilderness Society) sent in approximately 1,800 identical 
postcards. Several additional letters and postcards were received after 
the closing date for public comments.
    Due to the large number of substantial changes required as a result 
of public comment on the 1998 Draft EIS/GMP, the NPS decided to rewrite 
the document. In September 2000, a Revised Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement and General Management Plan was released for 92 days of 
public review. Responses to all written substantive comments on the 
1998 Draft EIS/GMP were addressed in a separately bound report. The EPA 
published a notice of filing in the Federal Register on September 6, 
2000 (FR 54064-54065). Eleven more public meetings on the revised draft 
plan were held in southern California and southern Nevada during 
October and November 2000. During the public comment period, a total of 
202 written comments were received.
    Upon review of public and agency comments regarding the Revised 
EIS/GMP, it was determined that no new substantive issues were raised, 
therefore, the NPS decided to prepare an Abbreviated Final EIS/GMP, 
dated June 2001. The abbreviated format for the Final EIS/GMP was used 
because the changes to the revised document were minor and confined 
primarily to factual corrections, which did not modify the analysis. 
Use of this format is in accord with regulations implementing the 1969 
National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1503.4[c]). This abbreviated 
format requires that the material in this document be integrated with 
the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement and General Management 
Plan to comprise a full and complete record of the environmental impact 
analysis, public and agency comment, and decisionmaking process.

Conclusion

    Following the signing of this Record of Decision, the NPS will 
excerpt and print the final General Management Plan as a stand-alone 
document, which can be readily used by park staff and interested 
individuals and organizations as the ``blueprint'' for managing the 
Preserve over the next 10-15 years. The selected alternative was the 
agency preferred alternative and the environmentally preferred 
alternative as documented in the Abbreviated Final Environmental Impact 
Statement and General Management Plan, dated June 2001. Persons 
desiring a copy of the Presentation Plan when it becomes available, or 
the complete Record of Decision at this time, may contact the 
Superintendent, Mojave National Preserve, 222 E. Main St., Ste. 202, 
Barstow, California, 92311.

    September 28, 2001.
Patricia L. Neubacher,
Acting Regional Director
[FR Doc. 02-8700 Filed 4-9-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P