[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 96 (Tuesday, May 18, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28147-28153]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-11165]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Record of Decision, Final Rural Landscape Management Program 
Environmental Impact Statement, Cuyahoga Valley National Park, OH

SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) has prepared this Record of 
Decision (ROD) for the final rural landscape management program 
environmental impact statement (EIS) for Cuyahoga Valley National Park, 
Ohio (CUVA). The final EIS addresses the long-term management of the 
rural landscape (i.e., agricultural lands and associated structures) in 
the park. This ROD is a concise statement of the decisions made, other 
alternatives considered, the basis for the decision, the 
environmentally preferable alternative, the mitigating measures 
developed to avoid or minimize environmental harm, and the public 
involvement in the decision-making process.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Superintendent, Cuyahoga Valley 
National Park, 15610 Vaughn Road, Brecksville, Ohio 44141, or by phone 
440-546-5903.

Background of the Project

    Preservation of the rural landscape (i.e., lands and structures 
modified by humans for agricultural use) is central to CUVA's 
legislative mandate. The CUVA encompasses approximately 33,000 acres of 
relatively undeveloped land along 22 miles of the Cuyahoga River 
between the metropolitan areas of Cleveland and Akron, Ohio. Within the 
legislative boundary, the NPS owns approximately 18,500 acres. The 
remainder of land is owned and under management by other public or 
quasi-public entities, or remains in private ownership. Management of 
the rural landscape on the federally-owned acres within park boundaries 
is the focus of the Final EIS (i.e., 1,345 acres of land and 58 
properties with 175 structures as described in final EIS, section 2.3). 
The law that established CUVA mandates the ``preservation of the 
historic, scenic, natural, and recreational values of the Cuyahoga 
Valley'' (Public Law 93-555, 1974). One component of the historic and 
scenic values of CUVA is the rural landscape. Throughout the park's 
history, efforts to preserve the rural landscape have been sporadic; 
there has never been a comprehensive program to manage the rural 
landscape. As a result, many of the park's rural landscape resources 
have been lost. Therefore, CUVA is proposing to better protect and 
revitalize this cultural resource by implementing an integrated rural 
landscape management program, with the goal of more effectively and 
systematically preserving and protecting the rural landscape resources 
in the park. The final EIS analyzes four alternatives and their 
associated impacts.
    Farming history in the park and in the Cuyahoga Valley Region is 
significant. For the past one thousand years, there has been some form 
of agriculture in the Valley. In the more recent past, specifically the 
1800s, agriculture was the dominant and very prosperous way of life, 
particularly due to efficient transportation of goods via the Ohio & 
Erie Canal and the railroad system. But by the 20th century, new 
developments in agriculture in other parts of the State and country 
surpassed the Valley's farming methods. As a result, farming in 
northeast Ohio began to decline, while industrial, commercial, and 
residential development increased. However, the Cuyahoga Valley Region 
was largely spared from extensive development due to its challenging 
geography and geology. The 33,000-acre CUVA was created in December 
1974, effectively halting the conversions of historic farmsteads into 
residential and commercial uses. Today, the total amount of active 
farming in CUVA is about 3.6 percent of park land. Private farmers or 
other groups on non-Federal lands conduct half of this farming (590 
acres).
    As the NPS began to acquire land for the new park, beginning in 
1975, the focus was on protecting land from development pressures. 
However, once acquired, farm structures and farm fields were not given 
priority attention. Most of the farm buildings were allowed to stand 
vacant and deteriorating, and farm fields were untended and prone to 
ecological succession. While undeveloped lands in natural condition 
were seen to benefit from this ``hands off'' management strategy, farm 
properties suffered severe negative impacts. Attempts to address this 
shortcoming in rural landscape management were slow and haphazard and 
usually occurred in a very opportunistic fashion. Efforts including 
occasional mowing of farm fields, involvement of local farmers through 
short-term special use permits, and adaptive re-use of scattered 
historic

[[Page 28148]]

farm buildings proved to be inadequate given the magnitude of the rural 
landscape preservation challenge.
    The most recent effort to address rural landscape management is 
significant. To develop CUVA's first long-term, comprehensive, 
agricultural plan, park managers conceptualized a new program called 
the Countryside Initiative (CI). The park assisted with the formation 
of a nonprofit partner, the Cuyahoga Valley Countryside Conservancy 
(CVCC), to help develop and facilitate the CI. The NPS has developed a 
cooperative agreement with the CVCC for this purpose. A request for 
proposals (RFP) for five sustainable agriculture farmsteads was offered 
in January 2001. The park has recently negotiated three leases as a 
pilot project for the CI. The expansion of this program is outlined as 
alternative 2 (the preferred alternative) in the Final EIS. (Final EIS 
appendices B, E and G contain information about the agricultural 
leasing program, sustainable agricultural practices and fencing 
guidelines).
    The NPS has several mechanisms that allow for agriculture in parks. 
One of those is its Management Policies (2001) document, which states 
that agriculture is allowed when those agricultural activities ``* * * 
do not result in unacceptable impacts on park resources, values, or 
purposes, conform to activities that occurred during the historic 
period, and support the park's interpretive themes.'' Agricultural uses 
that do not conform to those in practice during the historic period may 
be allowed if they ``* * * contribute to the maintenance of a cultural 
landscape * * *'' or ``* * * are carried out as part of a living 
exhibit or interpretive demonstration.'' The NPS may also allow 
livestock use ``* * * when required in order to maintain a historic 
scene.''
    Similarly, on the park level, CUVA has developed several planning 
documents that address the topic of preserving the rural landscape. In 
particular, the park's general management plan (GMP; NPS 1977) states 
that ``the rural character of America is readily communicated in the 
agricultural landscapes that have survived to the present day. These 
and other valuable resources suggest both careful preservation and 
imaginative interpretation to ensure they become an integral part of 
the Cuyahoga environment'' (p. 35). The GMP, as well as several other 
planning documents, which are examined in detail in final EIS chapter 
1, trace the park's continued desire to preserve the rural landscape 
and show what steps the park has taken over the years to do so. CUVA 
currently implements 11 management methods that help preserve the rural 
landscape, such as several types of leasing, special use permits and 
mowing to name a few. All 11 of these are explained in the final EIS 
section 1.2.4.5. Individually, each of these methods has benefits and 
drawbacks. Collectively however, it is the inherent drawbacks of these 
methods that do not allow for the comprehensive management of the 
entire rural landscape. Although individuals with special use permits 
are farming some fields, this is generally done on a short-term basis 
so the farmers usually are not focused on long-term care of the land. 
There are many other fields that could contribute to the rural 
landscape, but if they are not tended to regularly by permit holders, 
lessees, or the NPS mow crew, the fields become overgrown. There are 
more buildings in the park than the park can actually use for its own 
purposes, so many buildings sit idle and are subject to vandalism and/
or deterioration and ultimately, demolition. Unfortunately, the 
opportunistic fashion in which the many methods have been applied has 
made rural landscape management in the park a laborious, expensive, and 
less than effective undertaking.
    Agricultural open space is defined in this final EIS to be 
approximately 1,345 acres of Federal land. Currently, the NPS manages 
approximately 740 acres using one of the 11 methods described in final 
EIS section 1.24.5. The remaining 605 acres of available open space are 
not currently actively managed for rural landscape value. The proposed 
action would designate these areas for mowing or potential agricultural 
use. A total of 85 properties with 267 structures contribute to the 
rural landscape in CUVA (these are identified in final EIS Appendix A). 
Fifty-eight properties consisting of 175 structures are considered to 
be available for modified management under the proposed action using 
the various methods described in the alternatives. The preferred rural 
landscape management approach at CUVA will:
    Continue the agricultural tradition--Agricultural activity, or the 
appearance thereof, must be preserved in order to maintain agricultural 
open space and promote the historic character of the Cuyahoga Valley. 
Either active farming or open rural landscapes without active farming 
would be acceptable means of achieving this objective. Preserve scenic 
values--CUVA's enabling legislation mandates the preservation of scenic 
values, which include cultural and natural elements. The preservation 
of agricultural lands and structures that make up the park's rural 
landscape will help achieve this objective, but any action must be 
balanced with effects on natural scenic values.
    Use environmentally sound practices--NPS policies and practices 
promote responsible stewardship of the land. Because the proposed 
action described in this document will affect the park landscape 
broadly, environmentally sound practices are imperative.

Decision (Selected Action)

    Under the selected alternative (alternative 2: Countryside 
Initiative), the rural landscape would be managed largely by issuing 
long-term leases to private individuals for the purpose of conducting 
sustainable agricultural activities and revitalizing a `sense of place' 
in the Cuyahoga Valley. Lands and structures would be leased together 
for agricultural use, at a rate of 2-3 farms per year for ten years, 
for periods of up to 60 years. Agricultural open space associated with 
these farmsteads and not currently managed would be cleared by mowing 
and/or brush hogging in preparation for farming activities over the 
next decade.
    Farmers would be selected for the leasing program through a RFP. 
These farmers would be required to submit annual farm operating that 
describe proposed farm activities such as new construction, crop and 
livestock selection, farming practices, and pesticide, fertilizer, and 
water use. All farm activities will require NPS approval.
    Land management and day-to-day maintenance of farm buildings would 
become largely the responsibility of the lessees. Pesticide use in the 
park would be expected to increase as more land is put into active 
economically-based production, but the types of pesticides used would 
be largely biological rather than chemical. The use of cultural 
practices, biological pesticides and controls, and NPS integrated pest 
management practices would be emphasized over chemical uses. Changes to 
the landscape elements are expected. Fencing, outbuildings, farm-
related structures, bridges, windmills and other structures could be 
built on leased farmsteads. Because these farms need to be economically 
viable, farmers will need to protect their products from foraging 
wildlife, so the increase in fencing is expected to be substantial. 
However, all fences will conform to the fencing guidelines in appendix 
G of the final EIS.
    Farmers would be expected to use the common marketing methods used 
in sustainable farming such as pick-your-

[[Page 28149]]

own opportunities, community supported agriculture, restaurant 
supported agriculture, roadside stands, or weekly farmers markets.
    In addition to the actions described above, the following actions 
are part of the selected alternative and all other alternatives that 
were considered (described in the next section). The actions common to 
all the alternatives include:
    Policies, Protocols, and Monitoring: Each alternative will conform 
to a common set of applicable regulations, NPS guidelines, policies, 
and procedures.
    Common Vista Management Actions: Two large areas will be managed 
(through mowing or habitat management) as grassland habitat and one 
area will continue to be mowed for recreational purposes; these 135 
acres are not available for agricultural use.
    Management Methods Available: All possible management methods may 
be used in any of the alternatives, so the alternatives primarily 
differ in the emphasis of one or two methods over the others.
    Rehabilitation and Maintenance of Properties: The NPS will 
rehabilitate properties and be responsible for major property 
maintenance over time. Day-to-day maintenance may be the responsibility 
of the particular user if other than the NPS. Also, the rate at which 
properties are rehabilitated is constant among alternatives 
(approximately 3-4 per year for 10 years), although the type of 
rehabilitation may differ. Properties will be rehabilitated in order of 
priority for use. Structures on properties pending rehabilitation will 
undergo interim stabilization measures and associated lands will be 
maintained to control succession.
    Resources Reviews: Natural and cultural resource staff will review 
all lands and structures that will undergo any change in current 
management methods before any changes are approved.
    New Acquisitions and Unforeseen Circumstances: If additional lands 
and structures are acquired by the NPS, they will be assessed as 
described in the final EIS for current NPS lands and structures, and 
then managed under the selected alternative.

Mitigation Measures and Monitoring

    Several mitigation measures and monitoring efforts have been 
developed to reduce and minimize adverse impacts from the selected 
alternative. These include the mitigation of possible impacts to 
grassland and old field habitats and associated wildlife, water 
resources, and cultural resources and comprehensive monitoring efforts.
    In order to minimize and mitigate the effects of changing 
agricultural land uses on species dependent upon open grassland areas 
and older fields, the park has set aside lands for grassland management 
and will develop a habitat management plan for old field and shrub 
habitats within 5 years.
    Two large areas in the rural landscape were designated as grassland 
habitat management areas under all alternatives. These areas are 
currently open meadows and will be kept open primarily for their 
habitat values and rural character by mowing or other means. This 
acreage will not be available for other management methods. Two of the 
largest and most significant existing grassland habitat blocks have 
been designated for this purpose including the site of the old 
Richfield Coliseum (Coliseum) (75.5 acres) and a large restored area 
along the Cuyahoga River between the I-271 and I-80 bridges (35.4 
acres). The Coliseum site has recently been restored and now provides 
high quality habitat for several rare or declining grassland bird 
species.
    The continued loss of older fields over time to successional growth 
will likely exacerbate the adverse impacts of the proposed action on 
wildlife dependent upon these habitats. To help mitigate these impacts, 
a significant portion of the older fields were intentionally left in 
the landscape during planning, including the preservation of some of 
the largest tracts available (several 50-acre blocks) on Federal land.
    The Habitat Management Plan will be developed to prescribe 
appropriate clearing schedules and methods that will maximize grassland 
and old field habitat values. In this plan, the park will evaluate the 
desired successional stages, total acreage, landscape distribution, 
temporal management regimes, and available tools for managing these 
habitats and balance the benefits of preserving rare habitats with the 
adverse effects of arresting succession (i.e., edge effects and 
fragmentation). Such a plan will identify park goals and areas for 
maintenance as old field or shrub habitats and outline grassland 
habitat management efforts for the two grassland management areas. 
These habitat management efforts are in compliance with guidance 
provided in executive order 13186. Management plans will reflect any 
additional NPS guidance related to this order as it becomes available. 
Appropriate NEPA compliance and environmental analysis will be required 
for such a plan. The NPS has developed protection plans for CUVA 
wetland and riparian areas that will prevent most direct and indirect 
impacts on the Cuyahoga River, streams, and wetlands from NPS 
activities on agricultural lands. Effective protection for these 
resources will be afforded through the establishment of protective 
buffer zones that are required under all alternatives. Summaries of 
these plans are found in final EIS, appendix H. Should any buffers be 
found to be ineffective through park monitoring efforts, corrective 
measures and mitigation will be undertaken.
    It is possible that the NPS, after determining that no practicable 
alternative exists, may decide to expressly permit some level of 
adverse impact on wetlands or other water resources or their buffers to 
increase the utility or cultural resource value of a structure or 
farmstead. Such situations can not be readily identified at this time 
as they are related to site-specific plans not yet developed. Should 
these situations arise, the NPS will implement environmental compliance 
and documentation procedures as required under the Clean Water Act, 
NEPA, and Director's Order 77-1 (Wetland Protection) to examine site-
specific impacts. The NPS will first seek to avoid impacts to wetlands. 
Unavoidable impacts will be minimized and mitigated.
    As guided by National Register criteria and the Cultural Resources 
Management Guideline (NPS 1997a), mitigation measures for cultural 
resources would be implemented when it is not possible to protect 
archeological resources, historic structures, and cultural landscapes 
and an adverse impact is expected. Mitigation measures typically 
consist of data recovery and detailed recording. Data recovery projects 
will be designed in consultation with the State Historic Preservation 
Office (SHPO) and will conform to NPS and professional standards. 
Archeological data recovery projects, in particular, will include a 
written mitigation plan and Memorandum of Agreement between the park 
and the SHPO. This agreement will then be filed with the Advisory 
Council on Historic Preservation.
    In order to ensure that agricultural activity conforms to final EIS 
policies and protocols and that undesirable impacts are not occurring, 
the following monitoring efforts will be implemented (as detailed in 
final EIS Appendix B):
     An interdisciplinary NPS committee was created to oversee 
and review agricultural plans and activities in the park.
     The NPS Historical Architect will conduct annual 
inspections to assess the

[[Page 28150]]

condition of historic fabric to ensure that properties are being 
preserved adequately.
     NPS cultural landscape staff will conduct annual farm 
visits to ensure the preservation and protection of the rural 
landscape. Farms will be assessed for undocumented changes to the 
landscape in agricultural fields and curtilage. In addition, the 
general condition of farm landscapes will be assessed to ensure 
adequate upkeep.
     NPS Resources Management staff will inspect wetland and 
riparian buffer boundaries adjacent to agricultural lands annually 
through site visits during the growing season.
     The CVCC has broad monitoring responsibilities for CI 
farmers. The CVCC staff maintains close contact with lessees, normally 
visiting farms several times each month to observe operations, and to 
offer guidance on management issues. In addition to such continuous, 
informal monitoring, CVCC more formally assists lessees' preparation of 
an annual operating plan, and an annual operating review. Thereafter, 
CVCC helps the NPS evaluate these documents for compliance with park 
policies and guidelines. While CVCC has a general oversight function 
for all aspects of lessee farm use, it is particularly responsible for 
observing and comparing their production practices with commonly 
accepted standards for sustainable agriculture.
     NPS staff, cooperators and independent researchers will 
continue to research and monitor natural resources in and around 
agricultural areas. The park will encourage and support new projects 
that examine the effects of agricultural activities on natural 
resources and identify important ecological indicators. Several such 
agricultural research projects are currently underway or planned.
    Due to the programmatic nature of the rural landscape management 
program final EIS, specific projects will be reviewed as necessary for 
compliance with NEPA, National Historic Preservation Act, and other 
applicable Federal and State laws and regulations prior to project 
clearance and implementation. Additional mitigation measures would be 
developed as needed should undesirable impacts to resources be 
identified.

Other Alternatives Considered

Alternative 1: No Action

    Under Alternative 1, the NPS would continue to manage the rural 
landscape under current park plans and practices using the available 
management methods. In other words, the various methods would continue 
to be applied to unmanaged areas and structures opportunistically as 
needs arise. There would be no significant change in the emphasis of 
how these methods are used.
    Agricultural special use permits (SUP) and vista management by 
mowing would continue to be the dominant land management strategy, so a 
mix of conventional farming, sustainable farming, and equestrian uses 
would be expected. Adaptive park uses and long-term leasing would 
dominate structure management. Land management and day-to-day 
maintenance of farm buildings and curtilage lands would be shared in 
many ways among leaseholders and NPS staff. Little new construction or 
fencing is expected because the short-term nature of SUP farms does not 
motivate many farmers to take on this kind of expense. Finally, 
pesticide use in the park may increase if more land is leased, but the 
proportion of leased lands treated with pesticides and the type of 
pesticides used is expected to remain relatively constant. Because of 
the opportunistic nature of this alternative, some loss of land to 
succession and loss of structures to deterioration is expected.

Alternative 3: Vista Management

    In this alternative, the NPS would manage the rural landscape 
primarily for scenic values. The most significant change would be that 
upon expiration, agricultural SUPs and other agricultural activities on 
park property, would convert to mowing and non-agricultural use. 
Regarding structures, the restoration of currently unused farm 
structures would primarily be as scene-setters (buildings that strictly 
add to the aesthetics of the park as features of the cultural landscape 
without any operational function), or secondarily as residential, 
office, or other non-agricultural use.
    Regarding lands, lands would be used for non-agricultural purposes 
and be mowed to maintain open fields or as wildlife habitat. Curtilage 
lands will be mowed by NPS to maintain open space. Areas identified as 
significant for rare, threatened, endangered, or declining plants and 
animals would be identified and managed to increase habitat value, 
usually by adjusting mow frequency and timing. Mowing and other land 
management and maintenance activities would be largely the 
responsibility of NPS. Little new construction or installation of 
fencing is expected. Pesticide use would be expected to decrease as 
land is taken out of agricultural use.

Alternative 4: NPS Farming

    In this alternative, the NPS would manage the rural landscape 
primarily by hiring employees or contractors to implement a network of 
farmed areas as directed by the NPS to give the appearance of active 
farming in the park. Under this option, lands not under agricultural 
use would be put into agricultural use and unused structures would be 
rehabilitated primarily as scene-setters or to support NPS farming 
activities. Curtilage lands around these structures would be mowed. A 
farming program directed by the NPS could also include a few farms 
demonstrating various themes such as sustainability and farming 
practices of specific historical eras. Basically, the NPS would fill 
any gaps in agricultural activity on rural lands. This alternative 
seeks to preserve not only the open space and vistas associated with 
agricultural areas, but also the agricultural activities associated 
with those areas.
    Areas currently farmed would continue to be farmed under the 
management method already in place, but areas currently managed as open 
vistas would gradually be converted to NPS farming. Whether SUP farmers 
or NPS farmers were doing the farming, agriculture would be increased 
above current levels under this alternative. Therefore, land management 
activities and day-to-day maintenance of farm buildings would become 
largely the responsibility of NPS staff or contractors. Since the 
emphasis here would be on the activities relating to farming--plowing, 
sowing, and harvesting--little emphasis on crop protection or 
production would be made, therefore, an increase in fencing or 
pesticide use is not likely to occur.

Basis for Decision

    The selected alternative best supports the park's purpose and 
significance and accomplishes the statutory mission of the NPS to 
provide long-term protection of park resources while allowing for 
appropriate levels of visitor use and means of visitor enjoyment. As 
required by NEPA, the selection of an alternative was based solely on 
the information gathered and analyzed in the final EIS. In full 
consideration of NPS and park mandates outlined in this document, the 
beneficial effects and negative impacts on all aspects of the human 
environment are compared along with the expected economic costs and 
technical aspects of each alternative. A review of costs indicates that 
while all alternatives considered have start-up costs ranging from $20-
$27 million over the first 20 years, alternative 2 would

[[Page 28151]]

result in the establishment of a rural landscape management program 
with the lowest overall annual costs to the park over the long-term.
    Inherent to this decision-making process are trade-offs between 
natural and cultural resources. In many cases, actions that provide the 
most benefit to cultural resources also have the greatest negative 
effects on natural resources, and the opposite is often true as well. 
These inherent trade-offs largely explain why the park's preferred 
alternative (which provides the greatest benefit to cultural resources 
by recreating a ``living landscape'' but also unavoidably negatively 
affects natural resources) has been selected over the environmentally 
preferred alternative (which provides overall minor or moderate 
benefits to both natural and cultural resources).

Impairment

    The NPS Organic Act directs the NPS to manage the parks ``to 
conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the 
wildlife 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.'' Both the NPS Organic Act and the 
General Authorities Act prohibit an impairment of park resources. The 
NPS Management Policies (2001, section 1.4.5) provides additional 
guidance on what resources and impacts may constitute an impairment. An 
impact is more likely to constitute an impairment to the extent that it 
affects a resource or value whose conservation is: (1) Necessary to 
fulfill a specific purpose identified in the establishing legislation 
or proclamation of the park; (2) key to the natural or cultural 
integrity of the park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the park; or 
(3) identified as a goal in the park's general management plan or other 
relevant NPS planning documents. An impact would be less likely to 
constitute impairment to the extent that it is an unavoidable result of 
an action necessary to preserve or restore the integrity of park 
resources or values, which cannot reasonably be further mitigated. 
Impairment is an impact that, in the professional judgment of the 
responsible NPS manager, would harm the integrity of park resources or 
values, including opportunities that otherwise would be present for the 
enjoyment of those resources.
    After careful consideration of all impacts to resources that might 
result from actions taken by the park in implementing the selected 
alternative, the NPS found that no impairment of park resources or 
values would occur. Few resources would be expected to experience major 
or moderate adverse impacts from implementing the selected alternative 
(see table 2.9 and chapter 4 of the final EIS for more information). 
Where such impacts are expected, they are largely unavoidable or the 
result of cumulative actions outside the park's authority to control.
    Some actions may have unavoidable adverse impacts, but many of 
these have been minimized or reasonably mitigated. For example, the 
conversion of grasslands and ``older fields'' to agricultural use has 
direct consequences on species that live in those habitats, so two 
large grassland habitat management areas were designated to preserve 
the largest and highest quality habitat for rare and declining bird 
species and other species dependent on that habitat. Similarly, some of 
the largest existing areas of shrub habitat were preserved and not 
targeted for agricultural use and a Habitat Management Plan will be 
drafted within 5 years to address the long-term maintenance of these 
open habitats.
    Also, the preservation of open space in a largely forested 
landscape contributes to forest fragmentation levels and related edge 
effects. The selected alternative alone would not lead to impairment, 
but the cumulative effects on forests from continued regional losses 
and increased fragmentation of forested areas outside of the park and 
the effects of regionally overabundant deer populations could possibly 
lead to the eventual local extirpation of some sensitive forest 
interior species that need large, uninterrupted expanses of land. This 
would constitute a major adverse impact, but is not likely to lead to 
impairment due to the small number of species involved and the indirect 
and unavoidable nature of the impact.
    Finally, if under the selected alternative, white-tailed deer are 
forced to browse more heavily in bottomland forests because farm fields 
and open habitats are suddenly off limits, bottomland forests may be 
less likely to regenerate. The effects of this action alone would not 
lead to impairment, but the action could contribute to impairment if 
bottomland forests are lost. Mitigation associated with this potential 
impact is beyond the scope of the final EIS; however, the NPS has 
already initiated planning for a full separate environmental impact 
analysis under NEPA to assess possible management alternatives for 
reducing deer-related impacts and preventing impairment of park 
resources and values.
    Based on the analysis in the final EIS, the selected alternative 
will not lead to the impairment of park resources and will not violate 
the NPS Organic Act.

Environmentally Preferred 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 NEPA. 
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) NEPA Regulations,'' 1981). It should be 
noted when identifying the environmentally preferred alternative, 
economic, recreational and technical issues are not considered.
    Under alternatives 1 and 4, the adverse impacts associated with 
conventional agricultural uses will largely be compensated for by the 
maintenance of open; mostly unfenced agricultural lands and hayfields 
that still provide many benefits to wildlife that depend on them. 
Overall, only relatively minor adverse impacts are expected on the 
biological and physical environment from these Alternatives. 
Alternative 1 would only minimally protect historic and cultural 
resources, while alternative 4 provides a higher level of protection 
and enhancement of those resources from a larger increase in farming in 
the park.
    In contrast, the selected alternative (alternative 2) has the 
potential to have overall moderate adverse effects on biological and 
physical resources. This is primarily due to the fact that farming 
under this alternative is economically-driven and requires farmers to 
largely exclude wildlife from areas they now use through fencing, 
guardian animals, and other deterrents. The conversion of high-quality 
forage areas (i.e., crops such as corn) and habitats (i.e., hayfields) 
to other, better protected crops will effectively result in a net loss 
of forage areas and habitat. Additionally, new construction is expected 
to be highest under this alternative which may have additional adverse 
effects on the biological and physical environment.
    While having the greatest impacts on the biological and physical 
environment, alternative 2 is also the only alternative that provides 
major benefits to the historic and cultural environment through a 
significant increase in agricultural activity by resident farmers. The 
establishment of a living and working rural landscape that

[[Page 28152]]

only this alternative provides has the highest possible value to the 
parks cultural and historical environment and is the primary reason 
this alternative is the park's preferred alternative.
    Under alternative 3, active agricultural activity is largely 
eliminated from the park and replaced with relatively innocuous mowing 
regimes to keep areas open. This alternative actually provides minor to 
moderate overall benefits to many wildlife species that depend on these 
habitats. It is the only alternative that actually provides net 
benefits to natural resources from the removal of many potential 
environmental stressors and potential new construction actions directly 
related to agricultural activity. This alternative also provides 
moderate benefits to the historic and cultural environment, though not 
nearly as much as alternatives 2 and 4.
    Alternative 3 is therefore considered to be the environmentally 
preferred alternative in this EIS as defined by the Council on 
Environmental Quality because it causes the least amount of impact on 
biological and physical resources, and provides at least moderate 
benefits to the natural, cultural and historical environment of the 
park.

Measures To Minimize Harm

    All practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm that 
could result from implementation of the preferred alternative have been 
identified and incorporated into the alternative (as described above). 
They include, but are not limited to, setting aside and managing 
grassland areas for habitat values (section 2.4.3 of the final EIS), 
resource monitoring and management; buffering of water resources from 
agricultural activity, cultural and natural resource surveys and 
consultation prior to new construction or the use or modification of 
lands and structures, and the commitment to develop a Habitat 
Management Plan for grassland and shrub areas (section 4.3.3 of the 
final EIS). Additional mitigation measures would be developed as needed 
should undesirable impacts to resources be identified.
    Due to the programmatic nature of the rural landscape management 
program final EIS, specific projects will be reviewed as necessary for 
compliance with the NEPA, National Historic Preservation Act, and other 
applicable Federal and State laws and regulations prior to project 
clearance and implementation.

Public Involvement

    A summary of public involvement in the initial scoping and planning 
activities is outlined in Section 1.4 and appendix C of the final EIS. 
Since 1999, the NPS has conducted preliminary internal and external 
scoping activities to discuss the management of the park's rural 
landscape by meeting with other agencies, organizations, and 
individuals. Through these preliminary scoping activities, the NPS 
proposed a change in the rural landscape management practices at the 
park.
    When the proposed changes were identified as potentially affecting 
the human environment, the NPS decided to prepare an environmental 
assessment for the proposed action in May 2001. Environmental 
Assessments (EA) are written when the potential environmental impacts 
of an action are unknown. Formal scoping activities began for the EA in 
May 2001. Letters were mailed to natural and cultural resource agencies 
and organizations and a press release to major media outlets was 
issued. The letters and releases suggested a range of alternatives for 
rural landscape management. Twenty comments were received and several 
newspapers carried editorials and letters from the public on the issue. 
The NPS soon decided that due to the scale and complexity of the 
proposed action and the possibility that significant impacts may result 
from the action, the preparation of an EIS would be required. Public 
and agency comments received during the EA scoping process were 
summarized and kept for use in the EIS scoping process.
    The NPS initiated the process of preparing an environmental impact 
statement for rural landscape management in the park by publishing a 
notice of intent in the Federal Register on July 27, 2001. The notice 
of intent suggested a range of alternatives for rural landscape 
management, noted that public meetings were to be scheduled, and 
directed the public to a special park website for more information. 
Subsequently, a press release containing similar information was issued 
to approximately 160 local media contacts and to a list of 400 
individuals who had expressed specific interest in park agricultural 
activities. The press release and the summary of issues and 
alternatives identified during the EA scoping process were placed on 
the park website. Additionally, letters specifically requesting input 
were mailed to 93 natural and cultural resource agencies, agricultural 
groups, local municipalities, universities, tribes, organizations, and 
26 individuals. Two public open houses held on August 22, 2001, were 
attended by approximately 40 people. Public input was accepted until 
September 11, 2001. Seventeen written comments were received.
    The public and other agencies identified many environmental issues 
associated with the proposed action during the scoping process. 
Briefly, concerns about possible impacts from the proposed action on 
park cultural resources and landscapes, scenic values, wildlife and 
vegetation, water resources, and other natural resources were raised. 
Social issues such as public health and safety, changes in recreational 
opportunities, and economic impacts on local communities and school 
districts were also identified.
    In addition to public scoping, numerous agencies and organizations 
have been consulted throughout the preparation of this document. 
Cultural resource compliance for this project as required under section 
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, has been 
completed. Additionally, a consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service was completed, and will continue as required in accordance with 
the Endangered Species Act.
    The draft EIS was made available for a 60-day public review period 
from February 14-April 15, 2003. We distributed copy of the document to 
a list of over 100 agencies, organizations, local communities, tribes, 
Members of Congress, and individuals listed in the draft EIS, section 
52. Notices of availability of the draft EIS were published in the 
Federal Register by the NPS (February 5, 2003) and the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (February 14, 2003). Press releases to 
local media, paid announcements in the major local newspapers, and the 
park web site also announced the availability of the document. 
Reference copies were made available at park headquarters and ten local 
libraries. The document was also available on the park web site for 
viewing or downloading. A copy of the draft EIS was sent to anyone that 
requested one.
    Public meetings were held in the park on March 19, 2003, from 12-2 
p.m., and March 20, 2003, from 6-8 p.m. to solicit further comments. 
Approximately 20 people attended each meeting. Comments made during the 
public meetings as noted by NPS staff are included in section 5.3 
responses to comments.
    The NPS received 77 formal written comments during the comment 
period in addition to the public meeting comments. Comments received 
within two weeks after the comment period

[[Page 28153]]

closed were accepted. All comments are reprinted in full in Final EIS 
Section 5.3 Responses to Comments. The NPS responses to substantive 
comments are also provided in that section. The final EIS includes 
corrections and additions based on the substantive comments received. 
Additional revisions not affecting the analysis to correct errata and 
improve consistency are also included in the final EIS.
    A notice of availability for the final Rural Landscape Management 
Program Environmental Impact Statement for CUVA was published in the 
Federal Register on January 2, 2004. Since the notice was to appear in 
the December 24, 2003, Federal Register, the Environmental Protection 
Agency indicated the 30-day no-action period ended on January 22, 2004.

Conclusion

    Full consideration of the park's purpose and significance and its 
statutory mission, the benefits and costs to the human environment, and 
public input resulted in the selection of the final program, as 
described in the ``Alternative 2--Countryside Initiative (Preferred 
Alternative)'' section of the Final Environmental Impact Statement.

    Dated: February 13, 2004.
Ernest Quintana,
Regional Director, Midwest Region.
[FR Doc. 04-11165 Filed 5-17-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-52-P