[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 214 (Friday, November 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76960-76961]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26690]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

[NPS-MWR-KNRI-21917; 16XP103905-PPWODESCP1-PMP00UP05.YP0000-
PX.PD171326E.00.1]


Notice of Availability of the Draft Archeological Resources 
Management Plan, Environmental Impact Statement, Knife River Indian 
Villages National Historic Site, North Dakota

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION:  Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY:  The National Park Service (NPS) announces the availability of 
the Draft Archeological Resources Management Plan/Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS), Knife River Indian Village National Historic Site 
(Park), North Dakota.

DATES: All comments must be postmarked or transmitted not later than 
January 3, 2017.

ADDRESSES: A limited number of hard-copies of the Draft EIS may be 
picked up in-person or may be obtained by making a request in writing 
to Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site, P.O. Box 9, 
Stanton, North Dakota 58571. The document is also available on the 
internet at the NPS Planning, Environment, and Public Comment Web site 
at: https://Parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectID=34314

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Superintendent Craig Hansen can be 
reached at the address above, by telephone at (701) 745-3741 (ext. 
209), or via email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  This process has been conducted pursuant to 
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 
and the regulations of the Department of the Interior (43 CFR part 46). 
The purpose of the plan is to provide a management framework for 
proactive, sustainable archeological resource protection at the Park 
for the next 30 years. The NPS has identified four major threats to 
archeological resources. While riverbank erosion is the most visible 
and documented threat to archeological resources, additional impacts 
occur from pocket gopher activity, vegetation encroachment, and 
location of Park infrastructure.
    Riverbank erosion has been an ongoing problem since the Park was 
created and this ongoing impact has the greatest adverse effect to 
archeological resources. Over the past few decades village remnants and 
archeological sites adjacent to the Knife River have experienced 
measurable erosion. In addition, Northern pocket gophers affect 
archeological sites by displacing soil and artifacts from 
chronologically stratified deposits. Also, the encroachment of woody 
and overgrown vegetation into archeological sites causes multiple 
issues for archeological sites. Root growth results in displacement of 
chronological layers, similar to that of pocket gophers.
    The maintenance facility for the Park is a visual intrusion in the 
cultural landscape, particularly for the Big Hidatsa site, a designated 
National Historic Landmark. The North Dakota State Historic 
Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation 
(MHA Nation) Tribal Historic Preservation Office have recommended that 
the facility be relocated to remove this visual impact from the site. 
In addition, the maintenance facility is located near burial sites and 
areas considered sacred by the tribes traditionally associated with the 
resources present in the Park.
    Finally, the location of the Museum Collection Storage Facility, in 
the basement of the Visitor's Center, has had water infiltration 
issues. A final goal of this plan is to develop a remedy for this 
problem, or the storage facility will need to be replaced.
    Range of Alternatives Considered: The alternatives analyzed in the 
Draft EIS are summarized below.
    Alternative 1: No-Action Alternative: Under the no-action 
alternative, management of archeological resources at the Park would 
continue as currently implemented.
    Management would respond to archeological resource threats but 
without the benefit of site prioritization and a proactive adaptive 
management framework. Under the no-action alternative, existing Park 
infrastructure would remain in place. Repairs to the existing visitor 
center to address water infiltration issues would occur. Ongoing 
riverbank erosion, pocket gopher control, and vegetation encroachment 
management activities would continue.
    Elements Common to All Action Alternatives: Under both action 
alternatives, archeological resources management at the Park would be 
executed within an adaptive management framework. This framework would 
be used to address riverbank erosion, gopher control, and woody 
vegetation encroachment. The project team developed a process to 
prioritize archeological sites based on the importance of the resource 
and the level of risk of loss of the resource to inform management 
decisions.
    The NPS has developed indicators and standards for managing the 
archeological resources based on the Park's purpose, significance, 
objectives, and desired conditions. These indicators and standards will 
serve as a tool to monitor and evaluate the adaptive management 
actions.
    Alternative 2: Relocate Facilities in the Park: Under alternative 
2, archeological resources would be managed under the adaptive 
management framework described above. Under this alternative, the 
maintenance facility would be moved to another location in the Park and 
the existing maintenance buildings would be removed.

[[Page 76961]]

    Additionally, the museum collection would be moved if the project 
to stop water infiltration in the visitor center building is 
unsuccessful or if the Park identifies funding or partnership 
opportunities to relocate the museum collection out of the basement of 
the Visitor's Center to a more suitable location.
    Alternative 3: Locate Facilities Off-Site: Under alternative 3, 
archeological resources would be managed under the adaptive management 
framework described above. Under this alternative, the Park would 
relocate the maintenance facility outside the Park boundary and remove 
the existing maintenance buildings from the Park landscape. Similar to 
alternative 2, the museum collection would be moved if the project to 
stop water infiltration in the visitor center building is unsuccessful 
or if the Park identifies funding or partnership opportunities to 
relocate the museum collection out of the basement to a more suitable 
location.
    NPS Preferred Alternative: The preferred alternative is likely to 
be a combination of alternatives 2 and 3. The NPS would prefer to 
remove the maintenance facility from Park property, and stop water 
infiltration at the visitor center so the museum collection can remain 
in place. While moving the maintenance facility off-site is preferred 
to best protect Park resources, the ability to relocate is dependent on 
the availability of suitable property at a reasonable price. If 
suitable sites are not available when the Park is ready to relocate, 
the Park will construct the facilities within the Park.
    In order to comment on this plan, comments may be transmitted 
electronically through the project Web site (address above). If 
preferred, you may mail written comments directly to the Superintendent 
at the address above.
    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or 
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be 
aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying 
information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can 
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying 
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be 
able to do so.

    Dated: September 9, 2016.
Patricia S. Trap,
Deputy Regional Director, Midwest Region.
[FR Doc. 2016-26690 Filed 11-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4312-52-P