[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 96 (Tuesday, May 18, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28144-28146]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-11166]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Draft General Management Plan; Middle and South Forks Kings River 
Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan; North Fork Kern 
River Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan; Sequoia and 
Kings Canyon National Parks; Tulare and Fresno Counties, CA; Notice of 
Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Statement

SUMMARY: 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 (NPS), Department of the Interior, has prepared a Draft 
General Management Plan (GMP) and Comprehensive River Management Plan/
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Middle and South Forks 
Kings River and the North Fork Kern River and for Sequoia and Kings 
Canyon National Parks located in California. The purpose and need for 
the plan is to establish a park vision for the next 15-20 years, 
provide direction for the management of wild and scenic rivers, replace 
an outdated master plan, guide management of cultural resources, 
address unresolved issues in specific areas, resolve special use permit 
cabin issues for the Mineral King area; and address the changing 
context of the parks within the regional ecosystem.

[[Page 28145]]

This document describes and analyzes five alternatives which respond to 
both NPS planning requirements and to the issues identified during the 
public scoping process.
    The No-Action alternative would continue current management 
direction, and it is the baseline for comparing the other alternatives 
(it was originally Alternative B when the alternatives were first 
presented to the public in the winter of 2000). The Preferred 
Alternative would accommodate sustainable growth and visitor enjoyment, 
protect ecosystem diversity, and preserve basic character while 
adapting to changing user groups (this is also identified in the EIS as 
``environmentally preferred''). Alternative A would emphasize natural 
ecosystems and biodiversity, with reduced use and development; 
Alternative C would preserve the parks' traditional character and 
retain the feel of yesteryear, with guided growth; and Alternative D 
would preserve the basic character and adapt to changing user groups. 
This document also includes a comprehensive river management plan for 
the portions of the Middle and South Forks of the Kings River and the 
North Fork of the Kern River, which have been designated by Congress as 
components of the national wild and scenic rivers system. The purpose 
of the river management plan is to provide direction and overall 
guidance on the management of lands and uses within the river 
corridors. The environmental consequences of all the alternatives, and 
mitigation strategies, are identified and analyzed in the EIS.
    Scoping: Nine scoping meetings were held, seven planning 
newsletters issued; alternatives planning workshops were held in seven 
cities; and the resulting mailing list consists of over 3700 entries. 
The park has held regular communication with the cooperating 
association and concessioners authorized to operate in the parks. 
Meetings and contacts have occurred with special use permittees 
(Southern California Edison, Mineral King District Association, and the 
Boy Scouts of America); private landowners (Wilsonia District 
Association, Silver City, Oriole Lake); and other stakeholders 
(Backcountry Horsemen, High Sierra Hikers, Friends of the River, 
National Parks Conservation Association, Sierra Club, The National Park 
Foundation, Three Rivers community, Clean Air groups, Mineral King 
Advocates, Mineral King Preservation Society, Tulare Country Historical 
Society, California Department of Transportation, Tulare County, Fresno 
County, Save-the-Redwoods League, local and regional business groups, 
educational institutions and the Sequoia Federal managers group).
    Accompanying the project introduction in Newsletter 1--summer 1997/
reprinted winter 1998, public meetings were held in six locations in 
the parks during the summer of 1997; and in Three Rivers, Visalia and 
Fresno/Clovis in the winter of 1998. Comments and ideas were recorded 
from all meetings. Newsletter 2--June 1998 summarized public scoping, 
desired visions for the park, issues, type of decisions to be made, and 
provided background information about the Mineral King area. Newsletter 
3--March 1999, described a transportation study conducted in 1997-98 
and a 1998 visitor satisfaction survey. It also summarized the finding 
of a 1998 study to determine the eligibility of Mineral King Road 
corridor for the National Register of Historic Places as a cultural 
landscape. Newsletter 4--spring 1999, a 24-page workbook with maps to 
prepare for alternatives workshops, consisted of issue discussion and 
asked tradeoff questions; a total of 745 responses were received. 
Alternatives workshops to ensure that public ideas were incorporated 
into the range of alternatives to be assessed were attended by about 
five hundred people. These April 1999 workshops were held in San 
Francisco, Sacramento, Bishop, Los Angeles, Three Rivers, Visalia and 
Fresno/Clovis. In the summer of 1999 fourteen Native American tribal 
governments or entities were consulted. Ideas from scoping, public 
workshops and consultations guided the development of the range of 
alternatives, and suggested wording was used for alternative titles and 
descriptions. Newsletter 5--winter 2000, described a range of four 
alternatives that would be assessed in the draft environmental impact 
statement; included a pullout of alternatives maps; and presented draft 
parkwide zoning prescriptions. Newsletter 6--December 2000, an update, 
described establishment of Giant Sequoia National Monument; announced 
the eligibility of the Mineral King Road Cultural Landscape District; 
announced inclusion of the Wild and Scenic River Plan into the GMP 
process; announced that the plan would be delayed until a new 
superintendent was in place; and answered public questions about 
wilderness designation, and stated that a summary would be sent to 
people on the mailing list. Newsletter 7--spring 2002 was a brief 
update announcing the new Superintendent and the addition of the 1540-
acre Dillonwood Grove of giant sequoias to the park; asked about 
document format; and described the process known as ``choosing by 
advantages'' that was used to develop a preferred alternative. The 
process combined elements of all the alternatives to maximize benefits 
to the parks and cost-effectiveness. Newsletter 7, by asking what 
document format (CDs or printed copy) was desired, revised the 
Newsletter 6 approach that would send a printed summary to everyone. 
The newsletter stated if NPS was not notified a CD would be sent; 
approximately one hundred people specifically requested CDs and less 
than fifty requested printed copies.
    Proposed Plan and Alternatives: The draft EIS/GMP/Comprehensive 
River Management Plan includes four action alternatives and a no-action 
alternative which continues current management. The Comprehensive River 
Management Plan and approved plans would be common to every 
alternative.
    The No-Action Alternative (Continue Current Management): The parks 
are managed as they are now in accordance with approved plans (such as 
development concept plans, and the 1996 Giant Forest Interim Management 
Plan); negative resource impacts and visitor demands are responded to 
by relocating development, reducing some uses, or confining new 
developed areas. Visitor uses are reassessed and revised as new 
information about natural and cultural resource impacts and visitor 
needs emerges. Current facilities are inadequate for park needs and 
visitor use levels, and crowding is common in some areas.
    The Preferred Alternative: The parks' appeal is broadened to be 
more relevant to diverse user groups. Increased day use is 
accommodated, and overnight visitation is retained. The integrity of 
park resources is paramount. Stronger educational and outreach programs 
provide enjoyment and instill park conservation values. The basic 
character of park activities and the rustic architecture of facilities 
are retained so that the parks remain strikingly different from 
surrounding areas. Park administrative facilities are redesigned and 
may be relocated outside the parks. Park facilities accommodate 
sustainable growth. Stock use continues with appropriate management and 
monitoring.
    Alternative A: Emphasize Natural Ecosystems and Biodiversity; 
Reduce Use and Development: The parks are natural resource preserves; 
they are primarily valued because they contain publicly owned resources 
that will be conserved for the future. Levels of use are lower than at 
present, and visitor

[[Page 28146]]

experiences are more directly connected to natural resources and 
provide more solitude. The parks strongly contrast with surrounding 
lands that are under increasing pressure for use and development. Park 
managers aggressively cooperate with the managers of surrounding lands 
to enhance range-wide biodiversity.
    Alternative B: Preserve Traditional Character and Retain the Feel 
of Yesteryear; Guide Growth: The parks present a traditional park 
character and a feeling of yesteryear, where experiences are more 
reminiscent of how visitors used the parks in the past. This is 
conveyed through rustic architecture and lower impact recreational 
activities (such as sightseeing and hiking) that were popular from the 
1920s to the 1960s, and providing an experience that is strikingly 
different from that in an urban setting. Redesigned developed areas 
accommodate limited growth; overnight stays are encouraged. Negative 
impacts on natural resources are controlled, so as to maintain or 
improve resource conditions.
    Alternative C: Preserve Basic Character and Adapt to Changing User 
Groups; Guide Growth: The parks preserve some of their traditional 
character and rustic architecture, but diverse new user groups and uses 
are encouraged. Day use is more common. Facilities are expanded to meet 
users' needs, while frequent interpretive programs are offered to 
educate, entertain, and instill a sense of park conservation values. 
Negative impacts on natural resources are controlled or mitigated, so 
as to maintain or improve resource conditions.
    Public Review and Comment: The draft EIS/GMP is now available for 
public review. Requests for the document (by those not presently on the 
mailing list) should be addressed to: GMP, Sequoia and Kings Canyon 
National Parks, 47050 Generals Hwy., Three Rivers, CA 93271-9651, by 
telephone at (559) 565-3101, or by e-mail at [email protected]. The document may also be reviewed at park area 
libraries, or obtained electronically via the ``Management Docs'' link 
from the parks' Web site http://www.nps.gov/seki or at the NPS planning 
Web site http://planning.den.nps.gov/, selecting plans, and choosing 
``What's New'' under the listing for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National 
Parks. Printed copies and CDs will be sent to agencies and 
organizations listed as recipients in the Consultation and Coordination 
section of the document.
    Persons and organizations wishing to comment on the proposed 
General Management Plan must do so by writing to: GMP team leader Susan 
Spain, NPS Denver Service Center, 12795 W Alameda Parkway, Denver, CO 
80225-0287 (or via e-mail to [email protected]); or GMP Coordinator 
David Graber, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, 47050 Generals 
Highway, Three Rivers, CA 93271-9651 (or via e-mail to [email protected]). In addition, the parks will conduct public meetings to 
facilitate review and comment on the draft EIS/GMP; these will be held 
during the comment period both in the parks, as well as in the 
following locations: Three Rivers, Visalia, Fresno/Clovis, Sacramento, 
San Francisco, Los Angeles and Bishop. Confirmed details on meeting 
locations, dates and times will be posted on the parks' Web site; 
updates can also be obtained by telephone at (559) 565-3101.
    All comments must be postmarked or transmitted not later than 90 
days following the date EPA's notice of filing is published in the 
Federal Register--immediately upon determination of the actual date it 
will be announced via local and regional news media and posted on the 
parks' Web site. All comments will become part of the public record. If 
individuals submitting comments request that their name or address be 
withheld from public disclosure, the request will be honored to the 
extent permitted by law. Such requests must be stated prominently at 
the beginning of the comments. There also may be circumstances wherein 
the NPS will elect to withhold a respondent's identity as permitted by 
law. As always, the NPS will make available for public inspection all 
submissions from organizations or businesses and from persons 
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of 
organizations; anonymous comments will not be considered.
    Decision: Following the review period for the draft EIS/GMP, all 
signed comments received will be considered in preparing the final EIS/
GMP/Comprehensive River Management Plan. The final document is 
anticipated to be completed by mid-2005. Its availability will be 
similarly announced in the Federal Register. As this is a delegated 
EIS, the official responsible for the final decision is the Regional 
Director of the NPS Pacific West Region; subsequently the official 
responsible for implementation will be the Superintendent of Sequoia 
and Kings Canyon National Parks.

    Dated: April 26, 2004.
Jonathan B. Jarvis,
Regional Director, Pacific West Region.
[FR Doc. 04-11166 Filed 5-17-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-F6-P