Federal Register / Vol. 5, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2000 / Notices 2641

Copies of the plat will be made

available upon request and prepayment

of the appropriate fee.

Dated: January 6, 2000.

Stephen G. Kopach,

Chief Cadastral Surveyor.

[FR Doc. 00–1116 Filed 1–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–GJ–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

Homestead National Monument of

America

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Record of Decision, General

Management Plan and Environmental

Impact Statement, Homestead National

Monument of America, Nebraska.

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 and Final

Environmental Impact Statement for the

Homestead National Monument of

America in Gage County, Nebraska.

DATES: The Acting Regional Director,

Midwest Region approved the Record of

Decision, on December 22, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Superintendent, Homestead National

Monument of America, 8523 W. State

Highway 4, Beatrice, Nebraska 68310–

6743, telephone 402–223–3514.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

The National Park Service has

prepared the Final General Management

Plan/Abbreviated Final Environmental

Impact Statement (FGMP/AFEIS) for

Homestead National Monument of

America, Nebraska. The FGMP/AFEIS

proposes management direction for the

park for the next 10–20 years and

documents the anticipated effects of the

selected action and other alternatives on

the human environment, including

natural and cultural resources. This

Record of Decision is a concise

statement of the decisions made, other

alternatives considered, the basis for the

decision, the environmentally preferable

alternative, and the mitigating measures

developed to avoid or minimize

environmental harm.

Decision

After careful consideration of

environmental impacts, costs, and

comments from the public, agencies,

and technical evaluations, the National

Park Service recommends for

implementation the selected action

evaluated in the Final General

Management Plan/Environmental

Impact Statement.

Summary of the Selected Action

The goal of the selected alternative,

which was identified as Alternative C,

Option 1 in the Final Environmental

Impact Statement, is to significantly

change the physical arrangement of

facilities and operational functions of

the monument. The alternative

represents a comprehensive alteration to

the monument’s current operational

form and to visitor orientation in order

to fulfill the legislative requirements of

the monument. With this selected

action, the key monument facilities will

be relocated to a location outside of the

existing 100-year frequency flood

hazard zone. A minor boundary

expansion will be pursued to acquire

land outside existing boundaries that

would be necessary for the facilities.

Management zones will provide

guidance for managing specific areas for

desired visitor experience and resource

conditions (see p. 32 of the FGMP).

The selected action calls for the

creation of a new ‘‘Homestead Heritage

Center’’ to house the monument’s

collections, interpretive exhibits,

theatre, public research facilities, and

administrative offices. This new

‘‘Homestead Heritage Center’’ will be

located on the eastern side of the

monument.

The ‘‘Homestead Heritage Center’’

will require a separate research facility

within the building to act as a repository

for the monument’s homestead records

and other items of homesteading

literature, as required by the

monument’s enabling legislation. In

addition, the center will have a parking

lot designed to accommodate 50 cars

and 10 buses or campers.

The selected action also calls for the

existing visitor center/museum to be

modified and adaptively reused as an

‘‘Education Center’’. This center will

serve as a location where students of all

ages could engage in learning more

about the homestead story. A ‘‘School of

Traditional Homesteading Folk Arts’’

program will be established to give the

public an opportunity to learn old

homesteading folk crafts. In addition to

a range of educational activities that

will take place in this center, special

events and interpretive programs will

also be conducted here. Distance

learning technology will also connect

the center to schools near and far. The

areas to the back of the present facility

will be used to house maintenance

functions. The remaining offices will be

used by visiting instructors or modified

to serve as classrooms. The exhibits

presently in use will be removed and

that area converted to classrooms. The

existing parking lot appears to be

suitable to meet the foreseeable needs of

this facility.

In addition, the management

prescriptions contained within the

selected action will seek to promote the

establishment of a ‘‘Homestead Heritage

Parkway’’. This parkway concept is

proposed to form an interpretive linkage

between the monument, including the

Freeman School, and the surrounding

rural countryside and communities to

highlight today’s visible and tangible

results of implementation of the

Homestead Act. The principal

interpretive and educational theme of

the parkway will be agriculture. With

comparisons made to modern farm

operations. These stories will be

communicated through the use of signs

and traveler information radio

broadcasts.

The creation of this parkway as one of

the monument’s interpretive tools will

depend on voluntary partnerships with

the local governments and landowners

along the identified highway segment. It

is important to note that the NPS is not

recommending a formal federal

designation for this parkway. The

concept of the ‘‘Homestead Heritage

Parkway’’ presumes the rerouting of a

segment of State Highway 4 outside the

monument’s boundary. After this

realignment has occurred, the

abandoned segment of State Highway 4

will become an access road for the

monument and for local residents.

Existing truck and commuter traffic will

be rerouted on a comparable

replacement segment of State Highway

4 nearby. The ‘‘Homestead Heritage

Parkway’’ will begin where the access

road (the abandoned segment of State

Highway 4) enters the eastern boundary

of the monument and extend to the

Freeman School. The NPS envisions the

eventual and voluntary extension of the

‘‘Homestead Heritage Parkway’’ concept

from the Freeman School west along the

access road to where it rejoins State

Highway 4. The NPS also endorses the

parkway’s extension to the east from the

monument to the City of Beatrice

(meeting at the junction of State

Highways 136 and 4 in West Beatrice),

however the NPS is not recommending

any change to the currently designated

speed limit for that segment. It is

possible that a public biking and/or

hiking path could be connected to the

monument.

2642 Federal Register / Vol. 5, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2000 / Notices

Other Alternatives Considered

Alternative A is the no-action, or

status quo, alternative. This alternative

would have restricted the monument in

achieving its mission; however, it does

provide a baseline for comparison of the

other alternatives. This alternative

called for the continuation of current

levels and patterns of National Park

Service stewardship and management

with regard to natural, historic, and

cultural resources at the monument.

Each of the following action

alternatives were designed to achieve all

desired futures for the monument,

including those related to natural,

historic, and cultural resources

enhancement and protection, and visitor

experiences. The principle difference

between alternatives is the location of

the primary monument facilities.

Alternative B prescribed certain

alterations to the existing pattern of

facilities, stewardship, and

management. The monument’s natural,

historic, and cultural resources would

have remained generally as they are

now. The existing monument facilities

would have remained in their present

locations but would have been floodproofed to withstand a 100-year flood

event.

Like the selected action Alternative C,

Option 1, Alternative C, Option 2

proposed significant changes to the

physical arrangement and operational

functions of the monument. This

alternative also represented

comprehensive alterations to the

homestead resources. The alternative

also would have fulfilled the legislative

requirements of the monument.

Alternative C, Option 2 would have

significantly changed the location of key

monument facilities to a location

outside the existing 100-year frequency

flood hazard zone but within the

existing monument boundary. It also

proposed the creation of a new

‘‘Homestead Heritage Center’’ to house

the monument’s collections, interpretive

displays, public research facilities, and

administrative offices. The existing

visitor center would have been

adaptively reused as an ‘‘Education

Center’’ for special events, programs,

and educational opportunities. In

addition, it proposed to form a linkage

between the monument and the

surrounding countryside and

communities through the establishment

of an approximately six mile

‘‘Homestead Heritage Parkway’’ which

would highlight today’s visible results

of implementation of the Homestead

Act.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

The environmentally preferable

alternative is defined as ‘‘the alternative

or alternatives that will promote the

national environmental policy as

expressed in section 101 of the National

Environmental Policy Act. Ordinarily,

this means the alternative that causes

least damage to the biological and

physical environment; it also means the

alternative that best protects, preserves,

and enhances historic, cultural, and

natural resources’’ (‘‘Forty Most Asked

Questions Concerning Council on

Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) National

Environmental Policy Act Regulations,’’

1981).

The environmentally preferable

alternative is the selected action,

Alternative C, Option 1. This alternative

best meets the full range of national

environmental policy goals as stated in

NEPA’s section 101. The selected action

(1) maximizes protection of natural and

cultural resources while maintaining a

wide range of neutral and beneficial

uses of the environment without

degradation; (2) maintains an

environment that supports diversity and

variety of individual choice; (3)

achieves a balance between human

population and resource use; and (4)

improves resource sustainability.

The selected action removes the

monument’s threatened existing visitor

center complex, with its associated

resources, exhibits, and operational

facilities, from its location within the

100-year floodplain of nearby Cub

Creek. The removal of these resources

and functions to a different yet nearby

location also minimizes existing safety

and resource concerns associated with

the state highway crossing the

monument. In addition, the selected

action best minimizes impacts to and

developmental incursions into the

monument’s natural resources

(principally, its reconstructed tallgrass

prairie) and minimizes impacts to and

developmental incursions into the

monument’s cultural resources in the

form of its historic original 1862

homestead tract. It also maximizes

public and visitor safety by prescribing

the relocation of a segment of the

existing state highway to an alignment

outside monument boundaries. This

action will significantly reduce the

volume and mix of traffic on State

Highway 4, will improve the qualities of

visitor safety and experience, and will

result in a reduced physical intrusion

into the monument’s boundary.

Measures To Minimize 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.

They are presented in detail in the

FGMP/AFEIS. However, due to the

programmatic nature of the general

management plan, specific

implementation projects will be

reviewed as necessary for compliance

with the National Environmental Policy

Act, National Historic Preservation Act,

and other applicable federal and state

laws and regulations prior to project

clearance and implementation. Specific

measures to minimize environmental

harm also will be included in

implementation plans called for by the

FGMP/AFEIS. These plans include, but

are not limited to, resource management

plans, land protection plans, historic

structure reports, and schematic design

documents.

Basis for Decision

The selected alternative best supports

the park’s purpose and significance, and

accomplishes the statutory mission of

the National Park Service to provide

long-term protection of park resources

while allowing for appropriate levels of

visitor use and means of visitor

enjoyment. The selected alternative also

does the best job of addressing issues

identified during public scoping while

minimizing environmental harm. Other

factors considered in the decision were

public and resource benefits gained for

the cost incurred and extensive public

comment.

Public Involvement

The NPS has taken a comprehensive

approach to public involvement during

the development of this GMP. To date,

the NPS has issued two newsletters for

the general public and conducted a

series of public meetings. The NPS has

consulted with state and local

government officials, including the State

Historic Preservation Office. American

Indian groups with affiliations to the

monument have received the

newsletters and a copy of the draft plan

for comment.

Newsletter No. 1 was mailed in

December 1997. Newsletter No. 2 was

distributed in March 1998. Nearly 600

newsletters were in each mailing. The

series of public meetings were

conducted in January 1998. Two

meetings were held in Beatrice,

Nebraska, near the monument and one

in Lincoln, Nebraska, 40 miles away.

Over 20 people attended the three

meetings. In April 1998, an ‘‘open

house,’’ was held at the Monument.

Twenty-five individuals, park

neighbors, government officials, and

community members attended this

Federal Register / Vol. 5, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2000 / Notices 2643

1For purposes of this investigation, Commerce

has defined the subject merchandise as ‘‘solid,

fertilizer grade ammonium nitrate products,

whether prilled, granular or in other solid form,

with or without additives or coating, and with a

bulk density equal to or greater than 53 pounds per

cubic foot. Specifically excluded from this scope is

solid ammonium nitrate with a bulk density less

than 53 pounds per cubic foot (commonly referred

to as industrial or explosive grade ammonium

nitrate.)’’

‘‘open house’’. All public meetings

received coverage by local and regional

media sources. Monument neighbors

have been involved throughout the

process.

The GMP planning team contacted the

Pawnee Tribe of Oklahoma in an

attempt to identify tribal concerns

relative to this GMP/EIS. In addition,

comments were sought through

extensive mailings of newsletters and

media coverage. No response was

received from the tribe. Because of the

Pawnee’s long-standing cultural

affiliation with this area of Nebraska,

the NPS will continue to keep the tribe

informed of important stages of this

planning process and of plans to

implement the preferred alternative

throughout the GMP planning process.

Over 600 news letters announcing the

Draft General Management Plan and

Environmental Impact Statement for

Homestead National Monument of

America were mailed May 4, 1999. More

than 200 copies of the full draft

document were distributed to agencies,

organizations and individuals. The

document was also made available to

the general public at the Beatrice Public

Library and at Homestead National

Monument of America. The National

Park Service conducted two public

meetings in May 1999, one meeting was

held at the Beatrice Public Library May

25 while the second meeting was held

at the Charles H. Gere Library in

Lincoln, Nebraska May 26. An

additional public open house was held

June 29, 1999 at Homestead National

Monument of America to discuss the

Draft General Management Plan/

Environmental Impact Statement.

The Beatrice public meeting had 43

people in attendance; 14 people

attended the Lincoln public meeting.

One person attended the meeting held

in June, at Homestead National

Monument of America.

A 60-day review period (May 4, 1999

through July 10, 1999) was designated

for receiving comments on the draft

plan and EIS. Fifteen written comments

were received. At the end of the review

period, the comments were reviewed

and substantive comments were

identified. The Final General

Management Plan (FGMP) and an

Abbreviated Final Environmental

Impact Statement (AFEIS) were made

available to the public on November 21,

1999. The 30-day no action period

required by NEPA regulations

commenced on that date.

Approximately 39 copies of the FGMP/

AFEIS were distributed to agencies,

local governments, organizations,

persons who commented on the draft

GMP, and others who requested the

document. The FGMP/AFEIS contains a

complete summary of the public

involvement process and substantive

comments received.

Conclusion

A notice of availability for the FGMP/

AFEIS was published by the

Environmental Protection Agency in the

Federal Register on November 6, 1998.

The 30-day no-action period ended on

December 20, 1999. No public

comments were received during the no

action period.

The above factors and considerations

justify the selection of the final plan, as

described as Alternative C, Option 1, in

the Final Environmental Impact

Statement. The Final General

Management Plan is hereby approved.

Dated: December 22, 1999.

Catherine A. Damon,

Acting Regional Director.

[FR Doc. 00–999 Filed 1–14–00; 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; Notice of Meeting

Notice is hereby given in accordance

with the Federal Advisory Committee

Act (Public Law 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,

February 7, 2000.

The Commission was established

pursuant to Public Law 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 at park

Headquarters, McFarland Hill, Bar

Harbor, Maine, at 1:00PM to consider

the following agenda:

1. Review and approval of minutes from

the meeting held September 13,

1999

2. Committee reports

Land Conservation

Park Use

Science

3. Old business

4. Superintendent’s report

5. Public comments

6. Proposed agenda for next

Commission meeting, June 5, 2000

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: January 7, 2000.

Len Bobinchock,

Actg. Superintendent, Acadia National Park.

[FR Doc. 00–998 Filed 1–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731–TA–856 (Final)]

Certain Ammonium Nitrate From

Russia

AGENCY: United States International

Trade Commission.

ACTION: Scheduling of the final phase

of an antidumping investigation.

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives

notice of the scheduling of the final

phase of antidumping investigation No.

731–TA–856 (Final) under section

735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19

U.S.C. 1673d(b)) (the Act) to determine

whether an industry in the United

States is materially injured or

threatened with material injury, or the

establishment of an industry in the

United States is materially retarded, by

reason of less-than-fair-value imports

from Russia of solid fertilizer grade

ammonium nitrate, provided for in

subheading 3102.30.00 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States.1

For further information concerning

the conduct of this phase of the

investigation, hearing procedures, and

rules of general application, consult the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207,

subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 7, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karen Taylor (202–708–4101), Office of