[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 168 (Monday, August 31, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46233-46236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-23273]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Keweenaw National Historical Park, Michigan
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice--Record of Decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior, National Park Service, has
prepared a Record of Decision on The Final General Management Plan and
Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Keweenaw National
Historical Park, in Houghton County, Michigan.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Frank Fiala, Superintendent,
Keweenaw National Historical Park, P.O. Box 471, Calumet, Michigan
49931-0471. Telephone number 906-337-3168.
Supplementary Information:
Introduction
The Department of the Interior, National Park Service, has prepared
this Record of Decision on the Final General Management Plan/
Environmental Impact Statement (FGMP/EIS) for Keweenaw National
Historical Park, in Houghton County, Michigan. This Record of Decision
is a statement of the decision made, the background of the project,
other alternatives considered, the basis for the decision, the
environmentally preferable alternative, measures to minimize
environmental harm, and public involvement in the decision-making
process.
Decision
The National Park Service will implement the proposed action as
described in the Alternative 4 and Actions Common to All sections in
the Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement issued
in June 1998.
The intent of the proposed action is to create a dynamic national
park area that commemorates the significance of copper mining on the
Keweenaw Peninsula. Over time, the National Park Service will establish
a strong public presence in the Quincy and Calumet park units through
ownership, management, and interpretation of key resources. Also,
through technical and financial assistance to the community, the
National Park Service will be a contributing member of an organized and
active partnership of local
[[Page 46234]]
government and community groups that will work toward preservation and
interpretation of park and area resources. This approach will in the
long term best meet the purposes of Public Law 102-543 and provide the
broadest level of resource protection and visitor services for the park
and its cooperating sites.
In concept, this plan would be implemented by gradually building
park funding and a staff of professionals to provide increased
financial and technical assistance to the partners and cooperating
sites and other community groups to facilitate the preservation,
maintenance, and interpretation of resources. Once a strong assistance
program is established, the NPS would begin a concerted program to
acquire or otherwise protect and interpret significant properties in
the Calumet and Quincy units of the park, as funding and staffing
levels and legal constraints permit.
Initially, visitors will depend primarily on the preservation
accomplishments and interpretive programs of park cooperating sites and
others to gain an understanding of the park and region and its
significance. Gradually visitors will experience a much more
traditional national park visit as more resources within the park
boundary are preserved and interpreted by the park and community. At
least one property in each unit will be leased or acquired for park
administrative and visitor use facilities, with the intent that a
Quincy visitor facility will provide most visitors the first point of
introduction and orientation to the park, and that the park
headquarters and additional visitor orientation services will be
located in Calumet.
The Keweenaw National Historical Park Advisory Commission was
established as part of Public Law 102-543 to, among other things,
advise and assist the Secretary of the Interior in the planning and
implementation of this general management plan. Toward this end, the
commission will serve as the catalyst to bring interested public and
private agencies on the Keweenaw Peninsula together and help facilitate
and organize their activities toward achieving the intent of Public Law
102-543 and the park's general management plan. While the
responsibility and authority for the management of the park will remain
with the NPS, the Park Service will pursue through appropriate methods
the amendment of Public Law 102-543 to activate the commission's
operating authorities. These authorities will allow the Commission the
ability to conduct educational programs, accept donations, and acquire
real property to further the purposes of Public Law 102-543.
A limited number of cooperative sites will be established that
represent a unique story that is not well represented within park
boundaries. These sites would be eligible for funding or assistance
from the Commission and the partnership and consultative assistance
from the NPS. The NPS would have no liability for the sites. Within
park boundaries, the NPS can enter into cooperative agreements with
owners of nationally significant historic properties and they would be
eligible for specific NPS financial and technical assistance,
regardless of whether they are designated cooperating sites.
The NPS will use various methods of leasing, acquiring, or
otherwise protecting properties primarily in the core industrial areas
in the park. Department of the Interior policy 602 DM 2, section 2.4,
regulates acquisition of real property contaminated by hazardous
material. This policy allows a degree of flexibility that is not
permitted by language in the legislation that created Keweenaw National
Historical Park (KEWE). The NPS will seek, through legislative
processes, to modify that language, thereby assuring KEWE is on the
same footing as other parks in the system with regard to property
acquisition. A land protection plan will be developed for the park and
will establish priorities for acquisition of lands or interests in
lands.
Additional future studies and plans will be needed to implement the
broad guidance of the general management plan, such as historic
structure reports, a historic resource study, a cultural landscape
report, an ethnographic overview, oral history interviews, a
comprehensive interpretive plan, a resource management plan, a boundary
study, and hazardous substances surveys for lands proposed for
acquisition.
Background of Project
The concept of a park to commemorate the significance of copper
mining on the Keweenaw Peninsula surfaced in northern Michigan in 1974.
In response to a congressional request, the National Park Service
prepared national historic landmark nominations that resulted in the
establishment in 1989 of the Quincy Mining Company Historic District
and the Calumet Historic District. A Study of Alternatives, Proposed
Keweenaw National Historical Park, was prepared in 1991 and its
findings led Congress to pass Public Law 102-543 on October 27, 1992.
Public Law 102-543 established Keweenaw National Historical Park as a
unit of the National Park System. The purposes of the legislation are
to (1) preserve the nationally significant historical and cultural
sites, structures, and districts of a portion of the Keweenaw Peninsula
in the State of Michigan for the education, benefit, and inspiration of
present and future generations; and (2) to interpret the historic
synergism between the geological, aboriginal, sociological, cultural,
technological, and corporate forces that relate the story of copper on
the Keweenaw Peninsula.
The legislation also established the Keweenaw National Historical
Park Advisory Commission to advise and assist the Secretary of
Interior. While the legislation identified operating authorities for
the Commission, President Bush did not activate those authorities due
to incongruities in the language related to how Commission members were
appointed. These operating authorities, once activated, will provide
the avenue by which much of the legislative intent, especially as it
relates to the preservation and interpretation of resources outside the
park boundaries, can be realized.
The Quincy unit, with about 1,120 acres, is just northeast of the
city of Hancock and adjacent to Portage Lake. It includes the remnant
structures and mines of the Quincy Mining Company and its associated
historic landscape, including the Quincy Smelter. About 11 miles to the
northeast is the Calumet unit. It includes about 750 acres of remnant
administrative and mine buildings and the associated historic landscape
of the Calumet and Hecla Mining Company, and the supporting commercial
and residential areas of the Village of Calumet and Calumet Township.
Other Alternatives Considered
The Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement
describes four alternatives for management actions, the environment
that would be affected by those alternatives, and the environmental
consequences of implementing the alternative actions. The major topic
areas covered in each alternative are visitor experience and
interpretation, financial and technical preservation assistance,
acquisition of properties, development and use of properties,
administration and operation, and implementation. An earlier
preliminary management concept looked at NPS acquisition and management
of virtually every significant property in the two park units. This was
considered but rejected due to cost and contradiction of the
partnership approach to
[[Page 46235]]
management envisioned by the park's enabling legislation.
The three alternatives that have been considered in addition to the
Alternative 4 proposed action can be characterized as follows:
Alternative 1, the no-action alternative, proposes no changes in
the current management direction. Visitors would still rely primarily
on the services provided by groups like the Quincy Mine Hoist
Association and Coppertown USA and other sites to learn about the
historic resources and the history of copper mining on the Keweenaw.
Calumet would remain primarily a self-discovery area, although some
information would be available at park headquarters and other places.
The park staff would continue to work in partnership with the community
to find ways to protect resources and provide visitor services. These
efforts would be limited by minimal NPS staffing and funding.
The community assistance alternative, alternative 2, would place
the community at the forefront of implementing preservation actions and
interpretive and educational programs at sites throughout the park. The
protection of the park's significant resources would be vested in the
local governments through the designation of local historic districts
and preservation ordinances. The National Park Service would remain
primarily in the background in a support role, providing a
comprehensive program of technical and financial assistance to the
community to help make their actions a success. The primary areas of
interaction between NPS staff and visitors would be at a destination
visitor facility in the Quincy unit; basic visitor services and
administrative offices would be provided in a facility at Calumet.
Alternative 3 proposes a much more traditional park experience in
the core industrial areas of each park unit. As funding and staffing
levels allowed, the NPS would invest substantially in each of the core
industrial areas by acquiring significant properties, conducting
resource preservation, and adaptively using the structures.
Interpretive staff and media would be located at key sites.
Partnerships would be established and technical and financial
assistance provided in order to advance preservation of core industrial
area resources. Preservation and interpretation of resources outside
the core areas would be dependent on the efforts of the community.
Basis For Decision
Alternative 4, the selected action, combines the best aspects of
alternatives 2 and 3. This results in potentially the broadest level of
resources protection, interpretation, visitor services, and the optimum
opportunity for high quality visitor experiences. This approach remains
true to a major partnership approach by placing significant emphasis on
the role of the advisory commission and park partners, yet ensures the
National Park Service will have a very public role in the management
and interpretation of resources.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
Environmentally preferable is defined as ``the alternative that
will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA's
section 101. Ordinarily, this means the alternative that causes the
least damage to the biological and physical environment; it also means
the alternative which best protects, preserves, and enhances historic,
cultural, and natural resources'' (Forty Most Asked Questions
Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, 1981).
Alternative 4, the selected action, is the environmentally
preferable action. It best meets the full range of national
environmental policy goals as stated in NEPA's section 101. Alternative
4 combines the two major resource preservation strategies presented in
alternatives 2 and 3. A comprehensive financial and technical
assistance program will provide more opportunities for the community to
accomplish preservation and education efforts within the park and
surrounding community. A strong partnership between all entities will
help ensure good communication and effective decision making regarding
the highest and best use of available funds and expertise. And, a
strong NPS presence will show Federal commitment to and leadership in
resource preservation and management. The NPS acquisition program will
result in additional protection of structures and landscapes. The
emphasis on preserving and adaptively using the many historic
structures limits the future need for significant new development and
natural resource disturbance.
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 in the selected action. These measures are
presented in the FGMP/EIS. However, due to the programmatic nature of
the general management plan, specific implementation projects will be
reviewed as necessary for compliance with the National Historic
Preservation Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, and
other applicable Federal and State laws and regulations prior to
project clearance and implementation. Specific measures to minimize
environmental harm will be included in implementation plans called for
(as necessary) by the FGMP/EIS. These plans include: a historic
resource study, a cultural landscape report, historic structure
reports, an ethnographic assessment, a resource management plan,
development concept plans, schematic design documents, archeological
surveys, a land protection plan, level 1, 2, and 3 hazardous substances
surveys, and a boundary study.
The following measures will be implemented by Keweenaw National
Historical Park to avoid or minimize environmental harm as a result of
implementing the selected action, or to enhance protection of resources
on the Keweenaw Peninsula.
Keweenaw National Historical Park will work
cooperatively with the advisory commission, state, county, township,
city, and village agencies, community organizations, and individual
landowners to preserve and manage resources and provide for public
use. Key to this is assisting local jurisdictions in establishing
local historic districts and preservation ordinances. Ordinances
would promote both preservation of historic properties and
compatible design of new development in the park. This will lead to
enhanced protection of landscapes and structures, as well as to
enhanced enjoyment of these resources by the public.
The park will establish preservation financial
assistance grants to encourage preservation projects by private
property owners. Grant criteria would include adherence to the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties.
The park will engage in additional study, data
collection, and monitoring, especially of archeological and
ethnographic resources, cultural landscapes, historic structures,
and visitor uses to provide the knowledge base needed to make
informed decisions for the long-term protection and preservation of
park resources.
The park will acquire and provide appropriate
architectural treatment and use of some historic structures.
Treatments will conform to the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards. Prior to acquisition the resources proposed for
acquisition will be surveyed to
[[Page 46236]]
determine the nature and extent of hazardous materials
contamination, if any.
Short- and long-term soil disturbance and vegetation
loss from construction activities, including parking areas,
pulloffs, walkways, utility lines, public facilities, and landscape
restoration, will be minimized through appropriate erosion control
and revegetation and placement of facilities on previously disturbed
areas wherever possible.
Public Involvement
Public scoping meetings for the general management plan were held
in the Keweenaw area in 1994 and 1995, including meetings with the
Commission and park partners. A scoping newsletter with comment form
was distributed in May 1995. Park issues, vision statements, purpose
and significance statements, and interpretive themes were drafted as
part of this process.
In September 1995, a briefing booklet on conceptual planning
alternatives was distributed for review and comment, and public
meetings were held in Houghton, Calumet, Marquette, and Lansing during
the week of September 12, 1995. In February 1996, meetings and
briefings were held with members of the advisory commission and park
partners on the preliminary draft plan. Substantial revisions were made
per those meetings and a revised preliminary draft plan and
environmental document was distributed for review during the fall of
1996. On December 10 and 11, 1996, further meetings were held with the
advisory commission and other park partners, local agencies, and
cooperating sites. Substantive comments focused on concern that the
seriousness of the hazardous materials issue had been overstated and
presented too negatively; the need to formalize the current informal
arrangements between the NPS and cooperating sites; and that formal
recognition and establishment of a workable partnership arrangement was
needed that did not weaken the authority of the park's advisory
commission and treated other groups as partners, not as ``friends'' of
the park.
Reflecting many revisions in response to comments on the
preliminary draft, the Draft General Management Plan/Environmental
Impact Statement was printed and made available to the public on
September 1, 1997. The official review period closed on October 31,
1997. Copies were placed on review in local libraries and government
offices and were mailed primarily to the park's mailing list of
agencies and organizations. A summary newsletter was distributed to
others announcing public meetings and the availability of the draft
document. The first meeting was held at Calumet Elementary on September
22, 1997 and approximately 35 attended. A second public meeting was
held on September 23, 1997 at Suomi College in Hancock, with about 15
attending. During the 60-day public comment period, seven letters were
received. These letters were reproduced in the final document along
with agency responses.
The Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement
was made available for a 30-day no-action period on June 19, 1998.
Approximately 250 copies of the FGMP/EIS were distributed primarily to
key agencies and organizations. Copies were made available in local
libraries and government agencies and upon request. The FGMP/EIS
contains a full summary of the public involvement process and
substantive comments received.
Approved: August 13, 1998.
David Given,
Acting Regional Director, Midwest Region, National Park Service.
[FR Doc. 98-23273 Filed 8-28-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
