[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 5 (Tuesday, January 8, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 904-906]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-380]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Record of Decision; Final Environmental Impact Statement; General 
Management Plan; Washita Battlefield National Historic Site, Oklahoma

Introduction

    The Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS), has 
prepared this Record of Decision (ROD) on the Final General Management 
Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for Washita Battlefield National 
Historic Site, Oklahoma. This ROD includes a statement of the decision 
made, synopses of other alternatives considered, the basis for the 
decision, a description of the environmentally preferable alternative, 
a discussion of impairment of park resources or values, a listing of 
measures to minimize environmental harm, and an overview of public 
involvement in the decision-making process.

Decision (Selected Action)

    The National Park Service will implement the preferred alternative 
as described in the Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact 
Statement issued in August 2001. Under the selected action, park 
managers will make several changes to in order to provide a better 
visitor experience and protect the resource values at Washita 
Battlefield National Historic Site. The site will be zoned to ensure 
that resources are protected and opportunities exist to provide a 
quality

[[Page 905]]

visitor experience. Most of the site (about 90%) will be restored to 
native vegetation as directed by the site's enabling legislation. A new 
loop trail system will allow visitors to access the site. At the US 
Forest Service's Black Kettle National Grassland ranger station a 
shared administrative, maintenance, visitor facility will be 
constructed. The existing overlook will be redesigned to provide a 
better interpretive experience for the visitor.

Other Alternatives Considered

    Three other alternatives for managing Washita Battlefield National 
Historic Site were evaluated in the draft and final environmental 
impact statements.
    The no-action alternative provides a baseline for evaluating the 
changes and impacts of the three action alternatives. Under the no-
action alternative, park managers would continue to manage the park as 
it is currently managed, relying on the interim plans and other related 
existing plans. No new construction or major changes would take place, 
except for previously approved developments. All of the park's existing 
facilities would continue to be operated and maintained as they are 
currently.
    Alternative A would provide a new administrative, maintenance and 
visitor facility at the US Forest Service's Black Kettle National 
Grassland. There would not be any trail access down onto the site. 
However, the overlook would be redesigned to provide for better 
interpretation of the site.
    Alternative B would provide visitors with an onsite learning 
experience with an administrative, maintenance, and visitor facility on 
site. A loop trail would cross the river and return to the visitor 
area. The overlook would also be redesigned under this alternative.

Basis for Decision

    The Organic Act established the National Park Service in order to 
``promote and regulate the use of parks.* * *'' The Organic Act defined 
the purpose of the national parks as ``to conserve the scenery and 
natural and historic objects and wild life therein and to provide for 
the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will 
leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.'' The 
Organic Act provides overall guidance for the management of Washita 
Battlefield National Historic Site.
    In reaching its decision to select the preferred alternative, the 
National Park Service considered the purposes for which Washita 
Battlefield National Historic Site was established, and other laws and 
policies that apply to lands at Washita Battlefield National Historic 
Site, including the Organic Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and 
the NPS Management Policies. The National Park Service also carefully 
considered public comments received during the planning process.
    Each alternative in the General Management Plan presents a 
different framework for managing Washita Battlefield National Historic 
Site. As a result, each alternative would have different impacts on 
park resources and visitors.
    Compared to all of the alternatives considered, the preferred 
alternative (selected action) best accomplishes protection of park 
resources while providing of a range of quality visitor experiences. 
The preferred alternative would have both beneficial and adverse 
impacts on the park's resources, but most of the adverse impacts would 
be minor and localized. The new management zones would help ensure that 
opportunities exist for experiencing education and solitude for the 
visitor while protecting the site's cultural and natural resource 
values.
    The preferred alternative provides the visitors with a better 
experience than Alternative A by allowing trail access down onto the 
site.
    Compared to alternative B, the preferred alternative would result 
in far fewer adverse impacts on the cultural and natural resources of 
the site by having the major facility located off site. Unlike the 
preferred alternative, under Alternative B there would be the potential 
for moderate adverse impacts to the park resource values.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

    Records of decision are required under Council on Environmental 
Quality regulations to identify the environmentally preferable 
alternative. Environmentally preferable is defined as ``the alternative 
that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in 
section 101 of the National Environmental Policy Act. 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 is the NPS preferred 
alternative in the Final Washita Battlefield National Historic Site 
General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement because it 
surpasses the other alternatives in realizing the full range of 
national environmental policy goals in section 101. This alternative 
provides a high level of protection of natural and cultural resources 
while concurrently providing for a wide range of neutral and beneficial 
uses of the environment. The alternative maintains an environment that 
supports a diversity and variety of individual choices. Also it 
integrates resource protection with an appropriate range of visitor 
uses.
    The no-action alternative does not provide as much resource 
protection as the preferred alternative. Adverse visitor experience 
impacts also would likely increase under this alternative. Thus, 
compared to the preferred alternative, the no-action alternative is not 
as effective at meeting national environmental policy goals 3 (attain 
the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without 
degradation), 4 (preserve important cultural and natural aspects and 
maintain an environment that supports diversity and variety of 
individual choice), 5 (achieve a balance between population and 
resource use), and 6 (enhance the quality of renewable resources).
    Although alternative A provides a higher level of resource 
protection than the preferred alternative, it restricts visitor 
experiences and thus does not fully achieve goals 3 (providing the 
widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation) 
and 5 (achieving a balance between population and resource use)--
alternative A does not realize these national environmental policy 
goals to the same extent as the preferred alternative.
    Alternative B does provide for more localized visitor experiences 
and access to the site. However, there would be a higher potential for 
adverse impacts to cultural and natural resources under this 
alternative compared to the preferred alternative. Thus, alternative B 
does not meet policy goals 3 (attain the widest range of beneficial 
uses without degradation), 4 (preserve important cultural and natural 
aspects), and 6

[[Page 906]]

(enhance the quality of renewable resources) to the same degree as the 
preferred alternative.

Findings on Impairment of Park Resources and Values

    The National Park Service may not allow the impairment of park 
resources and values unless directly and specifically provided for by 
legislation or proclamation establishing the park. Impairment that is 
prohibited by the NPS Organic Act and the General Authorities Act is an 
impact that, in the professional judgment of the responsible NPS 
manager, would harm the integrity of park resources or values, 
including the opportunities that otherwise would be present for the 
enjoyment of those resources or values. In determining whether an 
impairment would occur, park managers examine the duration, severity 
and magnitude of the impact; the resources and values affected; and 
direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the action. According to 
NPS 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 NPS planning documents.''
    This policy does not prohibit all 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 an 
impairment.
    Moreover, an impact is less likely to constitute an impairment if 
it is an unavoidable result, which cannot be further mitigated, of an 
action necessary to preserve or restore the integrity of park resources 
or values.
    After analyzing the environmental impacts described in the Final 
General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement and public 
comments received, the National Park Service has determined that 
implementation of the preferred alternative will not constitute an 
impairment to Washita Battlefield National Historic Site's resources 
and values. The actions comprising the preferred alternative are 
intended to protect and enhance the park's natural and cultural 
resources, and provide for high-quality visitor experiences. Overall, 
the alternative would have minor, beneficial effects on such resources 
as cultural landscapes, ethnography and park collections; and a 
moderate, beneficial effect on visitor experience. From an overall, 
parkwide perspective, no major adverse impacts to the park's resources 
or the range of visitor experiences and no irreversible commitments of 
resources (other than a small loss of soil) would be expected. While 
the alternative would have some adverse effects on park resources and 
visitor experiences, most of these impacts would be site-specific, 
minor to moderate, short-term impacts.

Measures To Minimize Environmental Harm

    Measures to avoid or minimize environmental harm that could result 
from implementation of the selected action have been identified and 
incorporated into the preferred alternative and are described in detail 
in the Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. 
Cultural and natural resource mitigation measures are described in the 
``Alternatives'' chapter, the description of the preferred alternative, 
and in the analysis of environmental impacts. Measures to minimize 
environmental harm include, but are not limited to: tribal 
consultations; siting projects and facilities in previously disturbed 
or developed locations; employing erosion control measures, restoration 
of habitats using native plant materials; visitor education programs, 
ranger patrols, erecting barriers and signs to reduce or prevent 
impacts; allowing only the use of weed-free materials and equipment in 
the park; conducting visitor surveys and monitoring visitor use 
patterns; monitoring changes in the condition of natural and cultural 
resources; monitoring construction activities; and consulting with the 
Oklahoma Historical Society, office of the state historic preservation 
officer and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service when appropriate.

Public Involvement

    The National Park Service provided numerous opportunities for the 
public to participate in the Washita Battlefield National Historic Site 
general management planning process. The planning team primarily used 
newsletters and public meetings to solicit public comments and 
suggestions for the plan. During the course of the planning process two 
newsletters were sent to the site's mailing list, which consisted of 
over 400 names. Each of the newsletters provided the opportunity for 
feedback and comments from the public. The planning team held three 
sets of public meetings to gain public input during scoping, 
preliminary alternatives development and the draft plan public review. 
In addition, members of the planning team consulted with and sought the 
views of several agencies and governments, including the Southern 
Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes, Northern Cheyenne, Apache, Wichita tribes, 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, US Forest 
Service, and the Oklahoma Historical Society.
    The comment period on the draft plan initially ran from February 
15, 2001, through May 20, 2001. A notice of availability was published 
in the March 20, 2001, Federal Register. The planning team held six 
public meetings on the draft environmental impact statement from March 
27 through March 30, 2001. Meetings were held in Anadarko, Concho, 
Clinton, and Cheyenne, Oklahoma. About fifteen separate written 
responses were received during the comment period.
    Two individuals commented on the Final General Management Plan/
Environmental Impact Statement during the 30-day no-action period. No 
new substantive issues were raised in the two comment letters.
    The notice of availability for the final environmental impact 
statement was published in the September 21, 2001 Federal Register. The 
30-day ``no action'' period ended on October 15, 2001.

Conclusion

    Among the alternatives considered, the preferred alternative best 
protects the diversity of park resources while also maintaining a range 
of quality visitor experiences, meets NPS purposes and goals for 
managing Washita Battlefield National Historic Site, and meets national 
environmental policy goals. The preferred alternative 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. The officials responsible for implementing the selected 
alternative are the Director, Intermountain Region, and the 
Superintendent, Washita Battlefield National Historic Site.

    Dated: November 6, 2001.
John T. Crowley,
Acting Director, Intermountain Region, National Park Service.
[FR Doc. 02-380 Filed 1-7-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P