[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 242 (Friday, December 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78508-78511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31914]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve, Kansas

ACTION: Record of Decision.

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

    Introduction: The National Park Service has prepared the Final 
General Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement (GMP/EIS) 
for Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve, Kansas. This Record of 
Decision is a statement of the decisions made, other alternatives 
considered, the basis for the decision, the environmentally preferable 
alternative, measures proposed to mitigate environmental harm, and 
public involvement in the decision-making process.
    Decision: The National Park Service will implement the proposed 
action as described in the Preferred Alternative and the Actions Common 
to all Action Alternatives sections of the General Management Plan/
Environmental Impact Statement issued in September 2000.
    Summary of the Selected Action: The goal of the selected action is 
the integrated management of the natural and cultural resources of the 
preserve. Two fundamental ideas form the basis for the preferred 
alternative: (1) Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve has been 
established as a unit of the National Park System to preserve, protect, 
and interpret for the public a remnant of the once vast tallgrass 
prairie ecosystem, and (2) this remnant exists today because of a 
complex history of interaction between people and the land. The 
proposed management plan seeks to reflect this long history of 
interaction. Management areas will be designated to provide guidance 
for implementing desired future conditions and visitor experience 
goals.
    The National Park Service (NPS) will enter into a long-term legal 
agreement with the landowner, the National Park Trust (NPT), to manage 
the preserve. Initially, the NPS will acquire, through

[[Page 78509]]

donation, approximately 29 acres of land from the NPT that includes the 
historic ranch headquarters and the Lower Fox Creek School areas.
    The preserve will be managed to maintain and enhance the tallgrass 
prairie within its boundaries through the use of fire and historic and 
contemporary grazing regimes in different combinations that vary over 
time and location. Prescribed fire applications will make use of roads, 
fences, stream courses, topography, and burn frequencies to create a 
varied landscape or vegetative mosaic that will help maintain and 
enhance the tallgrass prairie and will encourage the wide variety of 
native plant and animal life associated with the prairie. Grazing 
regimes will include cattle and bison, separated by adequate fencing.
    Decisions regarding natural and cultural resources will be guided 
by information generated through research and by ongoing inventory and 
monitoring programs.
    Riparian areas will be protected from erosion and further loss of 
vegetation. Some bottomland prairie will be restored. Springs, seeps, 
and associated streams will receive additional protection if they are 
found to contain unique or rare native plant or animal species.
    Some agricultural crops will be planted to create a historic scene, 
but no alien, non-indigenous species will be introduced into riparian 
areas or areas of native prairie. Existing exotic species that could 
impact preserve resources in a negative manner, or could spread 
rapidly, will be removed or controlled where practical.
    Significant archeological and ethnological sites will be preserved 
and protected, and public access to these sites will be controlled. 
Specific resources may be made accessible to culturally affiliated 
tribes or traditionally associated groups by request. Any identified 
American Indian sacred sites will be protected, with access for sacred 
ceremonies allowed to appropriate tribes.
    The ranching character of the area encompassing the historic ranch 
headquarters and the Lower Fox Creek School will be retained, with the 
buildings, associated structures, and landscape features restored, 
rehabilitated, and/or preserved.
    A primary visitor information and orientation area will be 
developed near the junction of State Route 177 and U.S. 50, near Strong 
City. A variety of visitor activities and facilities appropriate for a 
national preserve will provide for a range of opportunities, time 
commitments, and levels of physical exertion. A range of on-site 
interpretive and educational programs will be offered, focusing on the 
natural history of the tallgrass prairie, ranching in the Flint Hills, 
and American Indian history and culture. A public transportation 
system, such as a shuttle, will be developed using existing roads and 
roadbeds to provide transportation, interpretive tours, and access to 
the prairie.
    Lands east of the Fox Creek bottomland will provide day use 
opportunities for visitors to explore the prairie and its associated 
human history.
    The NPS will actively seek partnerships and opportunities for 
cooperation with local communities, government agencies, nonprofit 
organizations, and other entities that may have an interest in helping 
to achieve the preserve's desired futures.

Other Alternatives Considered

    Alternative A, ``No Action.'' Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve 
represents an unusual situation in which to explore a ``no action'' 
alternative. The preserve is, and will remain, under the ownership of 
the National Park Trust (NPT), yet Congress has authorized the National 
Park Service (NPS) to manage the land. Currently an interim cooperative 
agreement is in place to allow the NPT and the NPS to work together to 
address the immediate operational needs. It is assumed that under this 
alternative the NPT would continue to own all the land and the NPS 
would continue to provide minimal management, in accordance with the 
terms of the interim agreement.
    A 35-year grazing lease would continue on 98 percent of the 
preserve. Current practices include early intensive stocking and annual 
burning of all the leased acreage. An access agreement between the NPT 
and the lessee would determine public access to preserve lands. Brome 
would continue to grow on preserve lands and riparian areas would 
continue to be used by cattle.
    Historic structures and portions of the landscape would receive 
routine or limited maintenance.
    Alternative B. The primary focus of this alternative would be on 
the cultural resources of the preserve. The majority of the preserve 
would be designated a cultural area, where most of the cultural 
resources would be restored, stabilized, or preserved, and visitor 
access to these resources would be maximized. A small area of the 
preserve would be set aside for prairie enhancement activities and low-
impact visitor activities. Motorized traffic would be limited and 
visitor opportunities would require greater time commitments and 
moderate effort.
    Alternative C. The primary focus of this alternative would be on 
offering diverse visitor opportunities. There would be management areas 
within the preserve for moderate use and an area for dispersed use. The 
moderate use area would offer public transportation, while the 
dispersed use area would be restricted to nonmotorized means of access. 
Cultural resources representing ``best examples'' of the story of human 
interaction with the prairie would be restored and preserved, others 
would be stabilized. Cattle operations would include cow-calf and 
season-long grazing to allow visitors the opportunity to observe 
ranching operations in all seasons. Prairie enhancement activities 
would occur in the dispersed use area.
    Alternative D. This alternative would offer a ``two-pronged'' focus 
on ranching and tallgrass prairie management. Demonstrations of 
ranching activities would occur and traditional row crops would be 
planted in some areas to re-create the historic agricultural and 
ranching scene. Cultural resources would be maintained and used 
adaptively for ranch operations, demonstrations, and visitor 
facilities. Prairie management would be designed to promote diversity 
of native species.
    Alternative E. The primary focus of this alternative would be on 
enhancing the tallgrass prairie ecosystem, including its associated 
creeks, springs, and seeps. Management activities would be designed to 
establish a dynamic mosaic of successional stages resulting from the 
interaction of climate, fire, and grazing. More than half the preserve 
would consist of a large native ungulate management area where visitor 
access would be limited. Other areas of the preserve would offer 
visitors more access and opportunities, such as demonstrations of 
traditional cattle ranching practices and demonstrations of alternative 
prairie management practices. Cultural resources in the ranch 
headquarters and Lower Fox Creek School areas would be preserved and 
protected.
    The following two additional alternatives were considered but 
rejected early in the planning process:
    Alternative F. Under this alternative the preserve would have been 
managed as a modern working ranch. Historic structures would have been 
adaptively used and other structures would have been updated and 
improved to meet modern needs. Prairie enhancement activities probably 
would not have occurred to a large extent, due to the need for 
profitability. Visitor access to the prairie and to the historic ranch

[[Page 78510]]

headquarters area would have been limited for safety reasons, though 
visitors would have had the opportunity to observe how cattle are 
raised for market today.
    Rehabilitation, restoration, and maintenance of the cultural 
resources and visitor access to those resources would have been very 
limited due to safety, liability concerns, and costs. Important 
elements of preservation and interpretation would be missing, including 
many of the cultural landscape elements. Significant changes might have 
been necessary to make the structures and facilities usable and 
efficient for ranching operations. These changes could have conflicted 
with the needs for interpretation, historic preservation, and visitor 
use.
    Elements of the legislation, purpose, mission, desired futures, and 
visitor experience goals could not have been met under this 
alternative, because of safety, liability, and costs. The need to 
provide for operational efficiencies and profits in a modern ranching 
operation also could not be met.
    Alternative G. Under this alternative, the majority of preserve 
lands would have been managed as a wilderness area. The historic ranch 
headquarters and Lower Fox Creek School areas would have been 
preserved, but most other developments would have been removed in order 
to restore all natural processes and enhance the prairie to the 
greatest extent possible. Visitor use would have been limited to 
nonmotorized and dispersed activities.
    Alternative G placed the greatest, almost exclusive, emphasis on 
the natural resources. Therefore, important elements associated with 
the restoration, rehabilitation, and maintenance of the cultural 
resources, including the cultural landscapes, would have been lost 
through this alternative. Visitor understanding and appreciation of the 
history of human use of the preserve area would not have occurred with 
this alternative, particularly in relationship to the ranching 
resources.
    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 last clause within this guidance is particularly relevant in 
identifying the environmentally preferable alternative for the 
Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve general management plan. Public Law 
104-333 sets forth two purposes for the preserve. First, the preserve 
was established ``. . . to preserve, protect, and interpret for the 
public an example of a tallgrass prairie ecosystem . . .'' Second, the 
preserve was established ``. . . to preserve and interpret for the 
public the historic and cultural values represented on the Spring Hill 
Ranch.'' Preserving both the natural and cultural resources that are 
related to the tallgrass prairie requires careful balancing to ensure 
that neither type of resource receives inordinate adverse impacts.
    In consideration of the dual purposes for which the preserve was 
established, the National Park Service has identified the Preferred 
Alternative as the environmentally preferable alternative. The 
preferred alternative would provide for greater expression of 
vegetative species diversity than other alternatives, and would have 
the lower impacts to vegetation from visitation and development. The 
alternative would provide for the greater knowledge of natural 
resources because of the emphasis on intensive inventory and monitoring 
programs and external research.
    Alternative E shares these advantages. Alternative E also would 
provide for greater improvement to water quality. However, Alternative 
E would allow for more deterioration of cultural resources (as the 
emphasis of the alternative would be on the protection of the tallgrass 
prairie ecosystem). The Preferred Alternative, therefore, provides for 
more holistic protection of the preserve's resources.
    Basis for Decision: While developing the various preliminary 
management alternatives, and through feedback from consultants and the 
public, the major focus of the proposed action was crystallized: the 
preserve represents a small remnant of the once vast tallgrass prairie 
and it is the long history of interaction of people with this land that 
has allowed that remnant to survive to this day. Thus, it was 
determined that the integration of the management of the cultural and 
natural resources, reflecting this long relationship of people and 
land, would be vital to the future protection of those resources and 
the interpretation of the story of the preserve. With that end in mind, 
the proposed action was developed out of the existing alternatives. It 
fully supports the park's purpose and significance; it accomplishes, to 
a great extent, the desired futures for the preserve; and it offers a 
broad level of both resource protection and visitor opportunities.
    Measures Proposed to Mitigate 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. These measures are identified in 
the GMP/EIS. They include, but are not limited to, monitoring and 
management of natural and cultural resources, monitoring and management 
of visitor use, and continuing consultation with appropriate entities. 
Many other mitigation measures are described in the GMP.
    Since the GMP/EIS offers a broad plan for the future, specific 
project and implementation plans will be developed later. These will be 
developed in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the 
National Historic Preservation Act, and other applicable federal and 
state laws and regulations prior to project clearance and 
implementation.
    Public Involvement: Five newsletters were produced; the first four 
issues went to all postal patrons in Chase County, to relevant agencies 
and organizations, and to those requesting to be on the mailing list. 
Chase County residents who requested to remain on the list were 
included in the mailing of the fifth issue. The planning mailing list 
currently contains approximately 1,435 addresses.
    Informational open houses have been held throughout the planning 
process. Two were held in July 1997, in Cottonwood Falls and Topeka, to 
introduce the planning team and to explain the planning process. Two 
were held in October 1997, in Emporia and Council Grove, to provide an 
opportunity for the public to ask questions about planning activities 
and to share information. One hundred forty-one people attended these 
meetings. Two hundred sixty-seven written comments were received early 
in the planning effort, expressing thoughts and concerns about a vision 
for the future of the preserve.
    In June 1998, when the preliminary management alternatives were 
developed, four open houses were held to present these alternatives: 
one each in Strong City, Wichita, Council Grove, and Lawrence. A total 
of 245 people attended those meetings, and during the comment period, 
324 written comments were received.

[[Page 78511]]

    Open houses were again held in these four cities and in Topeka, in 
February 1999, when the draft preferred alternative was developed. One 
hundred fifty-six people attended these meetings; 215 written comments 
were received.
    About 500 copies of the Draft GMP/EIS were distributed to the 
public, interest groups, and government agencies in late 1999. In 
conjunction with the 60-day public review of the Draft GMP/EIS open 
houses were held in Cottonwood Falls, Wichita, and Lawrence. A total of 
70 people attended these open houses. During the comment period, 69 
written public comments were received. Copies of the plan were 
available for review in local government offices and libraries.
    The Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve worldwide website 
(www.nps.gov/tapr) has contained planning information since June 1997, 
and electronic comment sheets were posted there during the public 
comment period for the preliminary alternatives, draft preferred 
alternative, and Draft GMP/EIS. Approximately 87 comments were received 
through that medium.
    Newsletters and response forms were available at the preserve's 
administrative offices in Cottonwood Falls, Kansas as well as at the 
historic ranch headquarters, two miles north of Strong City, Kansas.
    Conclusion: A notice of availability for the General Management 
Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for Tallgrass Prairie National 
Preserve was published in the Federal Register by the Environmental 
Protection Agency on October 20, 2000 and the 30-day no-action period 
ended on November 20, 2000. The National Park Service distributed 
approximately 315 copies of the Final GMP/EIS during this period. Eight 
letters commenting on the Final GMP/EIS were received. These letters 
either expressed support for the preferred alternative, repeated issues 
already addressed in responses to comments on the draft document, or 
raised issues more appropriately addressed in follow-up implementation 
planning. No changes to the GMP/EIS were made in response to comments 
on the final document.
    The above factors and considerations justify the selection of the 
final plan, as described in the ``Proposed Action'' and ``Actions 
Common to All Action Alternatives'' sections of the Final Environmental 
Impact Statement. The General Management Plan is hereby approved.

Recommended:

    Dated: December 4, 2000.
Stephen T. Miller,
Superintendent, Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve.
    Approved:
    Dated: December 5, 2000.
David N. Given,
Acting Regional Director, Midwest Region.
[FR Doc. 00-31914 Filed 12-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P