[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64291-64292]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9002]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Notice of Availability of a Record of Decision for the Fort King 
Special Resource Study

SUMMARY: Congress, in the Interior Appropriations Act of 2000, 
authorized the Fort King Special Resource Study and Final Environmental 
Impact Statement (``Study''). The legislation directed the National 
Park Service (NPS) to determine whether Fort King is nationally 
significant and, if so, whether it is suitable and feasible as a new 
unit of the National Park System. Acknowledging the site's National 
Historic Landmark (NHL) status, the Study determined that Fort King is 
nationally significant. In addition, the Study determined that Fort 
King is suitable and feasible for inclusion in the National Park System 
because its interpretive themes are underrepresented in the current 
system and the property is of sufficient size and shape to protect 
resources and accommodate public use. The study does not, however, 
propose an active NPS management role at the site. Rather, existing 
programs such as Save America's Treasures and Preserve America are used 
to exemplify the types of NPS assistance available to future non-
Federal managers of the Fort King property.
    The Final Study was distributed for public review in August 2006. 
The NPS has prepared a Record of Decision (ROD) on the Study to 
document the decision made, the background of the project, other 
alternatives considered, the basis for the decision, the 
environmentally preferable alternative, and the public involvement in 
the decision-making process.
    The 1998 Omnibus Parks Management Act (Pub. L. 105-391

[[Page 64292]]

Sec.  303) mandates that each Special Resources Study (SRS) identify 
the alternative or combination of alternatives which would, in the 
professional judgment of the Director of the NPS, be ``most effective 
and efficient in protecting significant resources and providing for 
public enjoyment.'' The Study identifies Alternative B in the Study as 
the environmentally preferred alternative and most effective and 
efficient alternative because it preserves more of the site's 
archeological resources in an undisturbed condition and minimizes 
capital expenditures and long-term operating costs.
    Under Alternative B, the historic significance of Fort King would 
be communicated to visitors primarily through self-guided interpretive 
trails, wayside exhibits, and brochures. The park would not have a 
permanent on-site staff. Guided tours and live interpretation programs 
for school groups and special events would be provided by volunteers on 
a case by case basis. The site's existing wooded landscape would remain 
predominantly unchanged. Pedestrian trails would be cleared by 
vegetation and lightly graded. Trees and other woody vegetation 
immediately surrounding the fort location would be thinned or removed 
for interpretive purposes.
    The Federal government would not assume ownership of land, impose 
zoning or land use controls, or take responsibility for permanent 
funding. Likewise, there would be no direct NPS ownership or management 
of resources. As with other National Historic Landmarks, the NPS could 
provide technical assistance for general planning, resource management, 
and interpretation. However, overall management of the Fort King site 
would be administered by one or more local entities.
    The Study also presented in detail a No Action and two Action 
Alternatives that describe different ways of commemorating, 
interpreting, and preserving resources associated with Fort King. All 
alternatives are described in detail in the Study.
    Alternative B provides a broad range of public benefits such as 
improved public access, long-term preservation of archeological 
resources, and increased visitor awareness of the site's national 
significance while minimizing capital expenditures and long-term 
operating costs.

DATES: On September 14, 2006, the Regional Director, Southeast Region, 
NPS signed the ROD for the SRS and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 
for Fort King.

ADDRESSES: Tim Bemisderfer, Planning and Compliance Division, Southeast 
Region, National Park Service, 100 Alabama Street SW., 1924 Building, 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303. An electronic copy of the Final EIS and ROD are 
available on the internet at http://parkplanning.nps.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Bemisderfer, 404-562-3124, 
extension 693.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A copy of the ROD can be obtained via the 
Internet by visiting the NPS Planning Environmental and Public Comment 
System Web site at http://parkplanning.nps.gov or by calling 404-562-
3124, extension 693.
    The responsible official for the FEIS is Patricia A. Hooks, 
Regional Director, Southeast Region, National Park Service, 100 Alabama 
Street SW., 1924 Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

    Dated: September 29, 2006.
Patricia A. Hooks,
Regional Director, Southeast Region.
[FR Doc. 06-9002 Filed 10-31-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-M