[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 222 (Friday, November 16, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57729-57733]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-28712]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Record of Decision; Final Fort Bowie General Management Plan and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement; Fort Bowie National Historic 
Site, Arizona

    The Department of the Interior, National Park Service has prepared 
this Record of Decision on the General Management Plan and Final 
Environmental Impact Statement for Fort Bowie National Historic Site. 
This Record of Decision includes a description of the background of the 
project, a statement of the decision made, synopses of other 
alternatives considered, the basis for the decision, findings on 
impairment of park resources and values, a description of the 
environmentally preferable alternative, a listing of measures to 
minimize environmental harm, and an overview of public and agency 
involvement in the decision-making process.

Background of the Project

    A comprehensive general management plan (GMP) is needed to manage 
resources and guide development and use. The master plan approved for 
Fort Bowie in 1975 is outdated and inadequate to deal with the variety 
of issues facing the historic site.
    The purpose of the new GMP is to decide what kinds of resource 
conditions and visitor experiences should ultimately be achieved and 
maintained throughout the historic site. The process started in early 
May 1998 and involved joint scoping for GMPs for both Fort Bowie NM and 
Fort Bowie NHS. A newsletter invited the public to attend meetings to 
discuss both plans. Notices of the public meetings were also sent to 
nearby newspapers. Four meetings were held the week of May 18th in the 
towns of Portal, Willcox, and Bowie, and at a school just outside of 
Fort Bowie NM. A total of 19 people attended the meetings. The GMP 
process was described at each meeting, as were the two parks. There was 
general appreciation expressed for the parks, and recommendations were 
made not to change them. All suggestions were discussed and notes were 
taken. Another 24 mailed responses were received from newsletter 
readers. In addition to the newsletter, letters were also sent to three 
Apache tribes (White Mountain, San Carlos and Tonto), the Yavapai 
Tribe, Mohave Tribe and one nation (Mescalero) in Arizona, New Mexico, 
and Oklahoma, and to two interested individuals (American Indians). No 
responses were received.
    A Notice of Intent to publish an Environmental Impact Statement was 
published in the Federal Register in June of 1999. A 30-day public 
comment period followed ending on July 15, 1999. A Web site (http://www.nps.gov/planning/fobo) was established to facilitate making 
information about the planning process available to the public. A total 
of 5 responses were received requesting information on the planning 
process. Groups included one organization interested in land issues, 
one interested in handicapped accessibility, and two unaffiliated 
individuals.
    The purpose of the Fort Bowie General Management Plan is to present 
a comprehensive management plan and guide the management of the Fort 
Bowie National Historic Site for the next 12 to 15 years. Two 
alternatives were considered--a no-action and the park proposal. The 
proposed general management plan for the Fort Bowie National Historical 
Site continues the concept established--the principle of a very low 
level of development, intended to allow the visitor a ``discovery'' 
experience in a place of ``historic abandonment.'' Alternatives A (the 
NPS Proposal) recognizes that the current level of development, 
interpretation, and the pattern of visitor use with some minor 
modifications are appropriate for Fort Bowie and would be maintained.

[[Page 57730]]

The concepts presented in the Final Fort Bowie NHS General Management 
Plan/FEIS are based on a thorough consideration of the best-available 
information on park resources and the visitor experience. Alternative A 
in the Final Fort Bowie NHS General Management Plan/FEIS presents a 
distinct vision for preserving the resources that contribute to Fort 
Bowie National Historic Site's cultural and natural values while making 
the resources available to people for their enjoyment, education, and 
recreation.

Decision (Selected Action)

    The National Park Service will implement Alternative A as described 
in the Fort Bowie National Historic Site General Management Plan and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement issued in March 2001. The selected 
alternative provides an overall combination of actions to restore 
natural processes, preserve cultural resource values, reduce harmful 
environmental impacts and continue to provide opportunities for high 
quality visitor experiences based on resource values. With the 
exceptions described below, the current level of development and 
interpretation and the pattern of visitor use would be maintained. In 
summary, the following would be implement. This is also documented in 
more detail in the plan.
    Apache Pass Road--The approach to Fort Bowie, on the existing 
Apache Pass Road, serves as an introduction to the undeveloped nature 
of the park, and the park would encourage that it be retained as a dirt 
road. Paving the road could lead to its widening and straightening, and 
hence to higher speeds that might cause accidents and injury to 
wildlife. Therefore the NPS would request that Apache Pass Road not be 
paved from Emigrant Canyon across Apache Pass. The park would use its 
influence to prevent its paving unless the road is rerouted to the 
north, outside the park.
    Overlook--The only spot from which the fort can be seen from the 
road is from a minimally developed overlook. Because the overlook is on 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land, the park would work in 
partnership with BLM to improve the parking and make the trail to the 
lookout handicapped accessible.
    Park Entrance/Trailhead/Trail--Under the proposal, the entrance 
area/trailhead would be redesigned into a setting that is appropriate 
for the spot that introduces visitors to the fort trail and the fort 
itself. An open-sided information and interpretation shelter, about 15 
feet by 20 feet, would be the formal introduction to the park. It would 
be located at the roadside, near the existing rest room. The shelter 
would be built of slump block to give an adobe look and match existing 
buildings. The shelter would provide a description of the trail and the 
historic resources along it and would encourage the reader to take the 
trail, by describing it as an informational and scenic introduction to 
the fort. Information on how to reach the fort by road will be provided 
to visitors with mobility impairments.
    A phone or radio at the shelter would connect the visitor directly 
to the ranger station at the fort for additional information about 
accessibility or other matters. A surfaced handicapped parking space 
would be provided close to the shelter and rest room. No changes are 
anticipated to the route or historic nature of the trail. The trail 
would continue to serve as the primary interpretive route to the 
historic spots along the way and as a mood-setter for the visit to the 
fort itself.
    When additional research provides the necessary guidance, the 
cemetery's enclosing fence would be relocated to its historic location, 
as would the incorrectly placed grave markers (information is based 
upon historical park data.) More complete interpretation would be 
provided.
    Park Landscape--The park would continue to maintain the landscape 
in the valley along the access trail to its 1862-1894 appearance by 
removing mesquite and exotic vegetation. The area of mesquite and 
exotic removal would be increased from its present acreage and 
maintained by an active fire management program.
    Ruins Preservation--The first fort area would continue to receive 
routine preservation treatment of the exposed stone foundations and 
would be interpreted. There would be no changes to the site or its 
visitor use.
    Until a better means of preserving exposed adobe is available (one 
that is esthetically and historically acceptable), the second fort 
ruins would remain encapsulated within lime plaster. In the meantime, 
the park would pursue two objectives:
     Seek adequate and assured funding to maintain and test the 
encapsulated ruins.
     Contribute to preservation research and experimentation.
    The park would cooperate with and encourage such research, both 
generally and at Fort Bowie. As successful techniques are developed, 
the NPS would consider their applicability to the park ruins.
    An interpretive theme for the park would deal with this 
preservation problem, especially
     the nature of adobe and why it melts
     the problem of finding a satisfactory adobe preservation 
technique for a historic site
     the benefits and disadvantages of encapsulation and why it 
is being used
     an exhibition adobe wall (historic or new) showing the 
means of construction and the results of melting
    Vegetation Management--Vegetation in and near the fort would 
continue to be managed to retain the open, easily viewed appearance. 
Exotic vegetation would be removed.
    Visitor Center--No changes are recommended for the visitor center 
building, unless the construction of a new rest room is incorporated 
with the existing structure.
    This plan recognizes the need to provide accessibility into the 
fort and visitor center and recognizes that the only feasible means of 
doing it is from the housing/maintenance area. A short driveway would 
be constructed from the maintenance area to the visitor center along 
the existing utility corridor. Parking for two vehicles would be 
provided close to the visitor center.
    Accessibility--As stated previously, the best and most satisfying 
means of getting to the fort is via the long trail from the trailhead, 
because from it the historical and scenic character of the NHS is 
revealed bit by bit to the walker. Visitors who are disabled, entering 
from the maintenance area, miss that introduction. Therefore, it would 
be necessary to replace the actual experience with interpretive 
material at the visitor center. This printed or audiovisual material 
would try to capture the experience of the trail and its unfolding 
historical resources for those who are unable to enjoy it in person.
    An accessible rest room would be provided in the fort area, and as 
many of the paths among the ruins as feasible would also be made 
accessible. The park would discuss with accessibility experts the most 
practical type of wheelchair to have at the visitor center for loan to 
visitors.
    Administrative Area--This plan recommends no changes to the park 
housing area. Within the existing ``footprint'' of the maintenance 
area, a pad with utility hookups would be constructed for a volunteer-
owned recreation vehicle. The existing administrative road would 
continue to provide access to the housing/maintenance area and 
maintenance access to the fort and visitor center.
    Water System--A new well would be dug closer to the housing area 
and piped into the system, additional water storage

[[Page 57731]]

would be added, and a fire sprinkler system would be added to the 
visitor center. The existing well would be capped (unless it is needed 
for providing water to cattle), the 2/3 mile of surface pipe would be 
removed, and the ground restored to a natural condition.
    Old Butterfield Trail--The Old Butterfield Trail, west of its 
junction with the main park trail, and its section of the park, would 
not be altered. This area would retain its ``discovery'' environment.
    Grazing--Grazing would be phased out and the park boundary would be 
fenced. Historic Apache Spring would continue to be piped out of the 
park for livestock use. The current Permittee has \1/2\ water right to 
Apache Spring.
    Boundary--The entire park would be fenced and a boundary study 
would be conducted.
    Operating Expenses--The proposed rest room, the boundary fence, and 
the accessible route to the visitor center will require some 
maintenance, but it will be minimal and will be offset by the removal 
of the cattle fence and the 2/3-mile-long water pipe. The changes 
recommended by this GMP would cause little or no increase to operating 
expenses.
    Commercial Services--Individual business permits (covering both 
Fort Bowie and Chiricahua) allow guided horseback, hiking, and bus 
tours. Books are sold in the visitor center by the Southwest Parks and 
Monuments Association. No addition commercial services are needed or 
recommended.
    Park Museum and Collections--The proposal calls for improvement in 
the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system for the 
protection of collections.

Other Alternatives

No-Action Alternative

    Under the no-action alternative, existing conditions as described 
below would continue at Fort Bowie NHS.
    Visitors would continue to reach the historic site by traveling on 
the Apache Pass Road, a partially paved, graded county road. The 
primitive pullout a short distance before the trailhead, with a dirt 
parking area, trail to the overlook, and fort sighting pipe would be 
retained.
    Visitors would continue to reach the fort from the existing 
trailhead. The unimproved parking area, accessible composting toilet, a 
metal and wood shade structure with benches, and three interpretive 
waysides would be retained. Visitors would continue to leave their cars 
and approach the ruins of the fort via a 1\1/2\-mile trail. The 
existing fence, grave markers, and interpretive signs describing the 
cemetery would be retained. In the triangular valley leading to the 
fort, vegetation would continue to be managed, at a very slow rate, to 
restore and maintain the appearance of the historic fort based on the 
results of the cultural landscape report. In the first and second fort 
areas, the routine preservation of stone and adobe masonry foundations 
would continue. Vegetation would be managed by removing trees growing 
next to and among the ruins in order to retain the open area to protect 
and view ruins. Exotic species would be removed to protect native 
species. The visitor center, pit toilet, and trails throughout the fort 
areas would be retained. Interpretation, sales activities, and office 
space would continue to be the main functions in the visitor center.
    Under the no-action alternative, the houses, maintenance complex, 
offices, and utilities would be retained. Water would continue to be 
piped over ground to the housing/administrative area. Administrative 
access to the fort would continue along the existing dirt road, 
including one paved section on a steep segment of the road.
    The Butterfield Trail would continue to be used and maintained as a 
horse and hiking trail, with vegetation management to control exotic 
species.
    Grazing in the park would continue at its present rate under the 
no-action alternative. The historic Apache Spring would continue to be 
used as a water source for cattle grazing off of park land.

Basis for Decision

    After careful consideration of public comments received throughout 
the planning process, including comments on the Fort Bowie NHS General 
Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Alternative A has 
been selected for this Record of Decision. This alternative best 
accomplishes the legislated purposes of Fort Bowie National Historic 
Site and the statutory mission of the National Park Service to provide 
long-term protection of Fort Bowie National Historic Site's resources 
and values while allowing for visitor use and visitor enjoyment. The 
selected action also best accomplishes the stated purposes of the Fort 
Bowie NHS General Management Plan. Consequently, the selected action 
conserves values embodied in the Organic Act to:
     Accomplish the mission of the National Park Service
     Achieve the purposes and criteria of the Fort Bowie NHS 
General Management Plan, and
     Prevents impairment of park resources in a manner that 
meets legal and policy requirements

Protect and Enhance Natural and Cultural Resources

    Through its combination of restoration of areas to natural 
conditions, resource protection, and the location or relocation of 
facilities, Alternative A exceeds the other alternatives in its 
protection and enhancement of natural resources and removal of 
facilities from highly valued resource areas.
    Alternative A protects highly valued natural and cultural resources 
through the restoration Arizona vegetation communities. Habitat 
connectivity encourages biodiversity and promotes a more stable 
biological system.
    Alternative A preserves cultural and historic features of the park 
through a shift in interpretive them emphasizing understanding of 
cultural and natural resources and their environment--(ie. the nature 
of adobe and why it melts, the problem of finding a satisfactory adobe 
preservation technique for a historic site, the benefits and 
disadvantages of encapsulation and why it is being used) The importance 
of the park landscape and ruins preservation is also emphasized.
    Alternative A will better preserve the historic integrity of the 
area than the other action alternatives by retaining character-through 
the park's request that Apache Pass Road not be paved from Emigrant 
Canyon across Apache Pass. The park would use its influence to prevent 
its paving unless the road is rerouted to the north, outside the park.
    In summary, Alternative A includes actions that are beneficial to 
the natural resources and cultural resources than other alternatives.

Enhance Visitor Experience

    The criteria to enhance the visitors' experience by fostering a 
diversity of opportunities and by encouraging a high degree of resource 
stewardship through interpretation, orientation, and education, will be 
best achieved by implementing Alternative A. This would be done through 
increased awareness and understanding of park resources and 
accessibility improvements for disabled.
    Alternative A provides increased opportunities for experiencing 
Fort Bowie NHS on foot by providing additional trails.

[[Page 57732]]

Provide Effective Operations

    The management of park-wide operations would retain its existing 
operational structure. Small functional improvements would be made to 
facilities.

Provide Appropriate Land Uses

    The criterion articulated in the Purpose and Need of the Final Fort 
Bowie NHS General Management Plan/FEIS to site new facilities so that, 
in aggregate, they help achieve a benefit for park resources, will be 
met under Alternative A. Application of management prescriptions guide 
appropriate land uses.

Findings on Impairment of Park Resources and Values

    The National Park Service has determined that implementation of 
Alternative A of the Fort Bowie NHS General Management Plan will not 
constitute an impairment to Fort Bowie National Historic Site's 
resources and values. This conclusion is based on a thorough analysis 
of the environmental impacts described in the Final Fort Bowie NHS 
General Management Plan/FEIS, the public comments received, relevant 
scientific studies, and the professional judgment of the decision-maker 
guided by the direction Management Policies 2001. While the plan has 
some negative impacts, in all cases these adverse impacts are the 
result of actions taken to preserve and restore other park resources 
and values. Overall, the plan results in benefits to park resources and 
values, opportunities for their enjoyment, and it does not result in 
their impairment.
    In determining whether impairment may occur, park managers consider 
the duration, severity, and magnitude of the impact; the resources and 
values affected; and direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the 
action. According to National Park Service Policy, ``An impact would be 
more likely to constitute an impairment to the extent that it affects a 
resource or value whose conservation is: (a) Necessary to fulfill 
specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or 
proclamation of the park; (b) Key to the natural or cultural integrity 
of the park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the park; or (c) 
Identified as a goal in the park's general management plan or other 
relevant National Park Service planning documents.''
    This policy does not prohibit impacts to park resources and values. 
The National Park Service has the discretion to allow impacts to park 
resources and values when necessary and appropriate to fulfill the 
purposes of a park, so long as the impacts do not constitute 
impairment. Moreover, an impact is less likely to constitute impairment 
if it is an unavoidable result of an action necessary to preserve or 
restore the integrity of park resources or values.
    Human activity and past development have resulted in the ongoing 
disruption of natural systems and processes in Fort Bowie NHS for 
generations. The No Action Alternative would result in future unplanned 
and uncoordinated actions that are merely reactive to immediate 
concerns. Furthermore, these actions would likely be responsive to 
immediate, short-term, adverse impacts that demand attention, but may 
result in long-term impairment to park values and resources.
    The actions comprising Alternative A will achieve the goals of the 
Fort Bowie NHS General Management Plan (which include protecting and 
enhancing the natural and cultural resources of Fort Bowie NHS and 
providing opportunities for high-quality, resource-based visitor 
experiences) in a comprehensive, integrated manner that takes into 
account the interplay between resource protection and visitor use. 
Beneficial effects identified in the Final FEIS include effects related 
to restoring and protecting park resources and values.
    In conclusion, the National Park Service has determined that the 
implementation of Alternative A will not result in impairment of 
resources and values in Fort Bowie National Historic Site.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

    Environmentally preferable is defined as ``the alternative that 
will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in the 
National Environmental Policy Act's Section 101. NEPA Section 101 
states that ``* * * it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal 
Government to * * * (1) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation 
as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations; (2) assure 
for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and 
culturally pleasing surroundings; (3) attain the widest range of 
beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health 
or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences; (4) 
preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our 
national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment 
which supports diversity, and variety of individual choice; (5) achieve 
a balance between population and resource use which will permit high 
standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and (6) 
enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum 
attainable recycling of depletable resources.'' The environmentally 
preferable alternative for the Fort Bowie NHS General Management Plan 
is based on these national environmental policy goals.

Alternative A

    This alternative will realize each of the provisions of the 
national environmental policy goals stated in NEPA Section 101. 
Alternative A will protect and enhance the natural and cultural 
resources of Fort Bowie NHS, providing opportunities for high-quality, 
resource-based visitor experiences in a comprehensive, integrated 
manner. Alternative A takes into account the interplay between resource 
protection and visitor use and also restores and protects park 
resources and values. Alternative A will protect and enhance values of 
Fort Bowie NHS. These actions will further goals 1, 3, and 4 of NEPA 
Section 101.

No Action

    This alternative represents the current management direction with 
no dramatic or comprehensive changes taking place in the management of 
Fort Bowie NHS. Although the No Action alternative would include the 
least change to cultural resources, it would not result in the same 
level of environmental protection and restoration for natural 
resources, including floodplains as would occur under the various 
action alternatives. In having lesser protection and restoration of 
natural resources, including highly valued resources, the No Action 
alternative would not fully achieve provisions 1, 3, 4, and 5 of 
Section 101 of NEPA. Although existing patterns of visitor use would 
continue, traffic congestion and existing impacts upon visitor 
experience in Fort Bowie NHS would not be remedied. Compared to the 
action alternatives, the No Action alternative would be least effective 
in attaining goal 3 of NEPA, as described in Section 101, in that it 
would have the narrowest range of beneficial uses that would occur 
without degradation of natural and cultural resources in Fort Bowie 
NHS. Because of existing impacts that are not remedied and that relate 
to provisions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Section 101 (as discussed above), 
these provisions would not be realized by the No Action Alternative.

Summary

    The National Park Service has determined that the environmentally 
preferable alternative is Alternative A. While some specific actions 
under other alternatives may achieve similar or in

[[Page 57733]]

some cases greater levels of protection for certain cultural resources, 
natural resources, and/or visitor experience than under Alternative A, 
in aggregate, this alternative best achieves the six conditions 
prescribed under Section 101 of NEPA. While many of the actions in 
other alternatives may be similar to Alternative A in their effect and 
consequence, Alternative A (1) provides a high level of protection of 
natural and cultural resources while concurrently attaining the widest 
range of neutral and beneficial uses of the environment without 
degradation; (2) maintains an environment that supports diversity and 
variety of individual choice; and (3) integrates resource protection 
with opportunities for an appropriate range of visitor uses.

Measures To Minimize Environmental Harm

    The National Park Service has investigated all practical means to 
avoid or minimize environmental impacts that could result from 
implementation of the selected action. The measures have been 
incorporated into Alternative A, and are presented in detail in the 
Final Fort Bowie NHS General Management Plan/Supplemental Environmental 
Impact Statement.
    A consistent set of mitigation measures would be applied to actions 
that result from this plan. Monitoring and enforcement programs will 
oversee the implementation of mitigation measures. These programs will 
assure compliance monitoring; biological and cultural resource 
protection; traffic management, noise, and dust abatement; noxious weed 
control; pollution prevention measures; visitor safety and education; 
revegetation; architectural character; and other mitigation measures.
    Mitigation measures will also be applied to future actions that are 
guided by this plan. In addition, the National Park Service will 
prepare appropriate compliance reviews (i.e., National Environmental 
Policy Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and other relevant 
legislation) for these future actions.

Public and Interagency Involvement

    On June 14, 199, the National Park Service published in the Federal 
Register (Vol 64 pp 31874) a notice of intent to prepare an 
environmental impact statement for the Fort Bowie NHS General 
Management Plan. The Final Fort Bowie General Management Plan/FEIS has 
been developed pursuant to sections 102(2)'' of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (Public Law 91-190) and the Council on 
Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1508.22). Through scoping, a 
formal public comment process, public meetings and outreach, and 
meetings with government entities on the Draft Fort Bowie NHS General 
Management Plan/DEIS, the National Park Service conducted this planning 
process in consultation with affected federal agencies, state and local 
governments, tribal groups, and interested organizations and 
individuals.

Scoping

    Scoping typically occurs at the beginning of a planning process. 
However, in the case of the Draft Fort Bowie NHS General Management 
Plan/FEIS, scoping began in 1992. Scoping sessions by the park staff, a 
public open house, a press release, and a letter to 392 people on the 
mailing list for both Chiricahua NM and Fort Bowie National Historic 
Site (NHS) raised a series of issues. After a national reorganization 
in the National Park Service, the general management planning process 
was restarted in 1996 with a different planning team. The first step in 
the second process was a review of the work previously done and the 
incorporation of the 1992 public comments.
    In early May 1998, a newsletter was mailed to all interested 
parties and those on the park mailing list informing them of GMP 
projects for both Chiricahua NM and Fort Bowie NHS. The newsletter 
invited the public to attend meetings to discuss both plans. Notices of 
the public meetings were also sent to nearby newspapers. Four meetings 
were held the week of May 18th in the towns of Portal, Willcox, and 
Bowie, and at a school just outside of Fort Bowie NM. A total of 19 
people attended the meetings. The GMP process was described at each 
meeting, as were the two parks. There was general appreciation 
expressed for the parks, and recommendations were made not to change 
them.
    All suggestions were discussed and notes were taken. Another 24 
mailed responses were received from newspaper readers. Letters were 
also sent to six Apache tribes and one nation in Arizona, New Mexico, 
and Oklahoma, and to two interested individual American Indians. No 
responses were received.
    A Notice of Intent to publish an Environmental Impact Statement was 
published in the Federal Register in June of 1999. A 30-day public 
comment period followed ending on July 15, 1999. A website (http://www.nps.gov/planning/fobo) was established to facilitate making 
information about the planning process available to the public. A total 
of 5 responses were received requesting information on the planning 
process. Groups included one organization interested in land issues, 
one interested in handicapped accessibility, and two unaffiliated 
individuals.
    The DEIS Notice of Availability (NOA) was published in the Federal 
Register (Vol 64 pp 66640-66641) on November 29, 1999 announcing the 
availability of the Draft Fort Bowie NHS General Management Plan/DEIS 
and solicited comments from the public through January 2000. The final 
incorporation of public comment is part of the Final Fort Bowie NHS 
General Management Plan/FEIS and documented in Appendix 3 and published 
in March 2001. It was made available for public review per the Notice 
of Availability published in the Federal Register, March 26, 2001 (Vol 
66 Number 58 pg 16488).

Conclusion

    Alternative A provides the most comprehensive and effective method 
among the alternatives considered for meeting the National Park 
Service's purposes, goals, and criteria for managing Fort Bowie 
National Historic Site and for meeting national environmental policy 
goals. The selection of Alternative A, as reflected by the analysis 
contained in the environmental impact statement, would not result in 
the impairment of park resources and would allow the National Park 
Service to conserve park resources and provide for their enjoyment by 
visitors.

    Dated: June 18, 2001.
Alan W. Cox,
Superintendent, Fort Bowie National Historic Site, National Park 
Service.

    Dated: June 28, 2001.
William Ladd,
Director, Intermountain Region, National Park Service.
[FR Doc. 01-28712 Filed 11-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P