[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 200 (Thursday, October 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53796-53797]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27408]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Record of Decision; Final General Management Plan/Environmental
Impact Statement; Nez Perce National Historical Park, Idaho, Montana,
Oregon, Washington, and Big Hole National Battlefield, Montana
ACTION: Notice of approval of Record of Decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the regulations promulgated by the
Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1505.2), the Department of the
Interior, National Park Service, has prepared a Record of Decision on
the Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for
Nez Perce National Historical Park in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and
Washington, and Big Hole National Battlefield in Montana.
DATE: The Record of Decision was recommended by the Superintendent of
Nez Perce National Historical Park, concurred by the Deputy Regional
Director, Pacific West Region, and approved by the Regional Director,
Pacific West Region, on September 23, 1997.
ADDRESS: Inquiries regarding the Record of Decision or the
Environmental Impact Statement should be submitted to the
Superintendent, Nez Perce National Historical Park, P.O. Box 93,
Spaulding, ID 83551; telephone: (208) 843-2261.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the Record of Decision follow.
The Department of the Interior, National Park Service, has prepared
this Record of Decision on the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for the General Management Plan for Nez Perce National Historical
Park, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington and Big Hole National
Battlefield, Montana. This Record of Decision is a statement of the
decision made, the background of the project, other alternatives
considered, public involvement in the decision making process, the
basis for the decision, the environmentally preferable alternative, and
measures to minimize environmental harm.
The Decision (Selected Action)
The National Park Service will implement the actions common to all
sites and all alternatives along with the proposed actions and final
boundaries for individual sites within the park. Some actions remain
consistent with those presented in the Draft Environmental Impact.
Others were modified in the Final Environmental Impact Statement to
respond to public comments and concerns. Implementing actions are
synonymous with Alternative 1 for 6 sites, Alternative 2 for 25 sites,
and Alternative 3 for 7 sites.
Many overall actions would be designed to unify the various
individual park sites. Nez Perce life ways would be respected. Plans
would be developed to manage resources and vegetation, eliminate exotic
and noxious plants, and reintroduce native species. The park would
continue to work with local governments on issues that could affect
park resources. Nez Perce people would be encouraged to participate in
decisions about park planning, management, and operation. The current
overall general park management approach would be retained with the
appropriate additions and changes of selected, specific management
techniques. Incremental steps would be taken to improve visitor
services and operations. More cooperative agreements and other
partnership mechanisms would be developed as needed to protect
resources, and improve interpretation. Some facilities would be
rehabilitated or expanded, modest developments would be added at some
sites to meet requirements, and some historic structures would be
adaptively used.
Background of the Project
The need to prepare the General Management Plan/Environmental
Impact Statement resulted from the addition of 14 sites to the park in
1992 and because several important new issues needed resolution and
revised direction and renewed focus was necessary.
Other Alternatives Considered
At each site, two other alternatives to the selected action were
considered. The alternative that became the selected action varied from
site to site. At each site, Alternative 1 was the No Action
alternative. Under this alternative the accomplishment of many of the
park's goals and objectives would continue to hinge on partnership
through various types of formal and informal agreements, and viewsheds
and cultural resources would continue to be protected through
cooperative agreements, memorandums of understanding, scenic easements,
or purchase on a willing-seller basis. While some individual sites are
already adequately protected, under the No Action Alternative adverse
impacts to cultural resources would potentially occur at other sites
because this alternative provides the least additional protection of
resources compared to the other alternatives. At most sites, few or no
impacts to natural resources would occur. Interpretive information for
visitors would be improved at most sites. The visitor experience would
be enhanced because the interconnection of the various park sites would
be made clear.
Under Alternative 2, the general management direction of the park
would be retained unchanged. But, appropriate management techniques,
based on individual circumstances would be applied. Incremental steps
would be taken to fulfill requirements and standards for land and
resource protection, visitor services, and operations. More cooperative
agreements and other partnership mechanisms would be developed as
needed to protect and interpret resources. Studies would be conducted
to amplify and correct the interpretive story and to identify and
protect natural and cultural resources. The existing facilities would
be rehabilitated or expanded, and modest developments would be added at
some sites to meet operational and visitor use requirements. Some new
visitor facilities would be built and others rehabilitated, and several
overlooks and pullouts would be constructed or relocated. Some historic
structures would be adaptively used. These actions would be
accomplished in partnership with other agencies and organizations.
Under Alternative 3, more facility development and a greater
capital investment to develop new visitor facilities and the
operational costs associated with added personnel for certain locations
would occur. At a few sites visitation would increase more, and in a
few cases interpretation would be improved through the addition of more
park personnel or their presence for more months each year. There would
be more capital improvement expenditures for the construction of new
interpretive facilities, the enhancement of existing interpretive
facilities, and the rehabilitation of several historic buildings.
Basis for Decision
After careful evaluation of public comments throughout the planning
[[Page 53797]]
process, including comments on the Draft and Final GMP/EIS, the
selected action best accomplishes the legislated purpose of the park
and battlefield. This includes facilitating the protection and
interpretation of sites in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Montana that
have exceptional value in commemorating a portion of the history of the
United States and that balances the statutory mission of the National
Park Service to provide long-term protection of the units' resources
and significance while allowing for appropriate levels of visitor use
and appropriate means of visitor enjoyment. The selected action also
best accomplishes identified management goals and desired future
conditions, with the fewest environmental impacts.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
The alternative which causes the least damage to the cultural and
biological environment, and that best protects, preserves, and enhances
resources is Alternative 2.
Measures To Minimize Environmental Harm
All practicable measures to avoid or minimize environmental impacts
that could result from implementation of the selected action have been
identified and incorporated into the selected action. Implementation of
the selected action would avoid any adverse impacts on wetlands and any
endangered or threatened species or that would result in the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat of such
species. Protection of viewsheds and cultural resources not currently
owned by the National Park Service would be done through cooperative
agreements, memorandums of understanding, scenic easements, or purchase
on a willing-seller basis.
Public Involvement
Public comment has been requested, considered, and incorporated
throughout this planning process in numerous ways. The National Park
Service held 21 public scoping meetings in Idaho, Washington, Oregon,
and Montana in January and February 1995. A newsletter was mailed to
approximately 1,600 addresses announcing these meetings and that
presented the purpose, significance, and interpretive themes for the
park. A second newsletter presenting the desired future for the park
was distributed. A 50-page Alternatives Newsbook was distributed in
April 1996. Informal meetings on the alternatives were also held. In
July 1996, postcards indicating which alternative was selected for the
proposed action park-wide and for each individual site were
distributed. Workshops were held in 16 communities near park sites, on
the draft EIS. Consultation was also completed with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Forest
Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Oregon,
Montana, Idaho and Washington State Historic Preservation Offices,
Native American tribes, state and local governments and organizations.
Dated: October 2, 1997.
Rory D. Westberg,
Superintendent, Columbia Cascades Support Office, Pacific West Region.
[FR Doc. 97-27408 Filed 10-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
