53796 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 1997 / Notices

Dated: October 2, 1997.

John E. Crowley,

Acting Director, Intermountain Region.

[FR Doc. 97–27407 Filed 10–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 1997 / Notices 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 willingseller 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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

Acadia National Park, Bar Harbor,

Maine; Acadia National Park Advisory

Commission; Meeting

Notice is hereby given in accordance

with the Federal Advisory Committee

Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770, 5

U.S.C. App. 1, Sec. 10), that the Acadia

National Park Advisory Commission

will hold a meeting on Monday, October

27, 1997.

The Commission was established

pursuant to Pub. L. 99–420, sec. 103.

The purpose of the commission is to

consult with the Secretary of the

Interior, or his designee, on matters

relating to the management and

development of the park, including but

not limited to the acquisition of lands

and interests in lands (including

conservation easements on islands) and

termination of rights of use and

occupancy.

The meeting will convene in the Chart

Room, Youth Center Bldg., U.S. Navy

Base, Winter Harbor, Maine, at 1 p.m. to

consider the following agenda:

1. Review and approval of minutes

from the meeting held July 28, 1997.

2. Tour of Schoodic Peninsula.

3. Land Conservation Committee

report.

4. U.S. Naval Security Group Activity

current mission and future projections.

5. Old business.

6. Superintendent’s report.

7. Public comments.

8. Proposed agenda and date of next

Commission meeting.

The meeting is open to the public.

Interested persons may make oral/

written presentations to the Commission

or file written statements. Such requests

should be made to the Superintendent

at least seven days prior to the meeting.

Further information concerning this

meeting may be obtained from the

Superintendent, Acadia National Park,

P.O. Box 177, Bar Harbor, Maine 04609,

tel: (207) 288–3338.

Dated: October 3, 1997.

Paul F. Haertel,

Superintendent, Acadia National Park.

[FR Doc. 97–27406 Filed 10–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

Manzanar National Historic Site

Advisory Commission; Meeting

Notice is hereby given in accordance

with the Federal Advisory Committee

Act that a meeting of the Manzanar

National Historic Site Advisory

Commission will be held at 1 p.m. on

Saturday, October 25, 1997, at the Inyo

County Administrative Center, Board of

Supervisors’ Chambers, 224 N. Edwards

Street (U.S. Highway 395),

Independence, California, to hear

presentations on issues related to the

planning, development, and

management of Manzanar National

Historic Site.

The Advisory Commission was

established by Pub. L. 102–248, to meet

and consult with the Secretary of the

Interior or his designee, with respect to

the development, management, and

interpretation of the site, including the

preparation of a general management

plan for the Manzanar National Historic

Site. Members of the Commission are as

follows:

Ms. Sue Kunitomi Embrey, Chairperson

Mr. William Michael, Vice Chairperson

Mr. Keith Bright

Ms. Martha Davis

Mr. Ronald Izumita

Mr. Gann Matsuda

Mr. Vernon Miller

Mr. Mas Okui

Mr. Glenn Singley

Mr. Richard Stewart

The main agenda items at this

meeting of the Commission will include

the following:

(1) Status report on the development

of Manzanar National Historic Site by

Superintendent Ross R. Hopkins.

(2) General discussion of

miscellaneous matters pertaining to

future Commission activities and

Manzanar National Historic Site

development issues.

(3) Public comment period.

This meeting is open to the public. It

will be recorded for documentation and

transcribed for dissemination. Minutes

of the meeting will be available to the