[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