National Preservation Technology and Training Board-National Center for Preservation Technology and Training: Meeting
Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix (1988)), that the Preservation Technology and Training Board (Board) of the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training (NCPTT), National Park Service will meet on Friday and Saturday, November, 2-3, 2007, in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The Board was established by Congress to provide leadership, policy advice, and professional oversight to the National Park Service's NCPTT in compliance with Section 404 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 470x-2(e)). Location: The Board will meet at the Caribe Hilton Hotel, Los Rosales Street, Geronimo Grounds, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00901 telephone (787) 721-0303.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Comprehensive Management Plan; Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii; Notice of Availability
Pursuant to Sec. 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, as amended), and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500-1508), the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, has prepared a Draft Comprehensive Management Plan and programmatic Environmental Impact Statement identifying and evaluating two alternatives to current administration and management of the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail. These alternatives respond to the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1241-1251), NPS planning requirements, and the issues identified during public scoping. They address trail administration and management, cultural and natural resource protection, and use of the trail by local residents, Native Hawaiians, and the visiting public. When approved, the comprehensive management plan will guide, for approximately 15 years, the National Park Service in administering, preserving, protecting, developing, managing, and maintaining the 175- mile trail which includes portions of the ancient and historic ala loa (long trail; coastal trail around the island). The EIS compares baseline conditions of a ``no action'' alternative with potential impacts and two ``action'' alternatives and, where appropriate, suggests mitigation measures to reduce the intensity of the potential effect or to avoid the potential effect. Three other preliminary alternatives were considered but rejected because they did not achieve the objectives of the plan or were infeasible. An ``environmentally preferred'' alternative is also identified. Background: The National Park Service (NPS) administers the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail (NHT), added to the National Trails System by the U.S. Congress on November 13, 2000. The legislation authorizing the Ala Kahakai NHT identifies an approximately 175-mile portion of prehistoric ala loa (long trail) and other trails on or parallel to the seacoast extending from Upolu Point on the north tip of Hawaii Island down the west coast of the island around South Point to the east boundary of Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. The Ala Kahakai NHT combines surviving elements of the ancient ala loa with segments of later government trails (alanui aupuni), which developed on or parallel to the traditional routes, and more recent pathways and roads that create links between the historic segments. The purposes of the Ala Kahakai NHT, derived from the legislative history, the Feasibility Study, and the public scoping phase completed in 2003, are to: Preserve, protect, reestablish as necessary, and maintain a substantial portion of the ancient ala loa and associated resources and values, along with linking trails on or parallel to the shoreline on Hawaii Island, and Provide for a high quality experience, enjoyment, and education (guided by Native Hawaiian protocol and etiquette) while protecting the trail's natural and cultural heritage and respecting private and community interest. Federal ownership of the Ala Kahakai NHT is limited to the trail alignment within the four national parks it links: Pu'ukohola Heiau National Historic Site, Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park (NHP), Pu'uhonua o Honaunau NHP, and Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Approximately 17% of the NHT is within the boundaries of these national parks. With trail authorization, these trail segments become federally protected components of the NHT, in compliance with Sec. 3(a)(3) of the National Trails System Act. The National Trails System Act, as amended, requires the preparation of a comprehensive management plan (CMP) for each new trail in the system. The CMP is intended to provide direction for natural and cultural resource preservation, education, and trail user experience of the Ala Kahakai NHT over the next 15 years. It considers the trail in its entirety. It identifies the necessity of community partnerships to protect trail resources and provide appropriate trail user services. As a partnership endeavor, the success of this plan is not solely determined by the NPS; rather its success rests with the will and preservation of other local government agencies, communities, organizations, neighborhood associations, and individuals who have the capacity and desire to implement actions within this plan. Proposed Plan and Alternatives: Alternative C (both the agency- preferred as well as the ``environmentally preferred'' alternative), is based on the traditional Hawaiian trail system in which multiple trail alignments within the ahupua'a (mountain to sea land division) are integral to land use and stewardship. Within the planning period of 15 years, the goal would be to complete the linear trail within the priority zone from Kawaihae to Pu'uhonau o Honaunau NHP (73 miles) and to protect other segments outside of that area as feasible. In addition, on publicly-owned lands the Ala Kahakai NHT would include inland portions of the ala loa or other historic trails that run lateral to the shoreline and would be connected to ancient or historic mauka-makai (mountain to sea) trails that would have traditionally been part of the ahupua'a system. Through an agreement, the state of Hawaii could convey to the NPS a less-than-fee management interest in trail segments that are state-owned under the Highways Act of 1892 within the Ala Kahakai NHT corridor. The NPS would then be responsible for managing these segments and federal law would fully apply. However, in cooperation with the NPS, local communities of the ahupua'a would be encouraged to take responsibility for trail management using the traditional Hawaiian principles of land management and stewardship. The NPS would offer technical assistance and limited financial assistance to these management partners. Partnerships with state and county agencies, community organizations, and private individuals would help protect trail resources and provide appropriate trail user services. The Ala Kahakai Trail Association would be expected to be robust enough play a major part in trail management, promotion, and funding. An auto tour would be completed that would lead visitors to 18 sites associated with the trail. Alternative A constitutes the ``No Action'' alternative, under which existing programs, facilities, staffing, and funding would generally continue at their current levels. The Ala Kahakai NHT would consist of trail segments within the four national parks through which it passes and only a few other segments, most likely on state lands. A continuous trail, as recommended in the Feasibility Study, would be the goal but would not be achievable, even in the long-term. An auto tour would be completed. Recreation along the trail and interpretation of its history would generally be limited to these sites. Alternative B proposes the completion of a single continuous trail composed of unaltered or verified ancient and historic portions of the ala loa linked as needed by later pre-1892 trails, pathways, and modern connector trails. Within the planning period of 15 years, the goal would be to complete the linear trail within the priority zone from Kawaihae to Pu'uhonua o Honaunau NHP and to protect other segments outside of that area as feasible. In the long term, cultural and natural resources along the entire trail tread and agreed-upon adjacent areas would be protected and interpreted to the public. The NPS would administer the trail, but management outside of the national parks would remain with the land managing agency or landowner. The NPS would offer technical assistance and limited financial assistance to these management partners. Partnerships with state and county agencies, the Ala Kahakai Trail Association, community organizations, and private individuals would help protect trail resources and provide appropriate trail user services. An auto tour would be completed. Scoping Summary: On April 4, 2003, the NPS published the Notice of Intent formally initiating the conservation planning and environmental impact analysis process for the Ala Kahakai NHT comprehensive management plan; the scoping period extended through June 28, 2003. Over 1,830 public scoping meeting announcements were mailed using an address list that included hiking enthusiasts affiliated with E Man Na Ala Held, various legislators, the Caleche-Hanukkah N.P. contact list, and interested individuals, organizations, and agencies that provided their contact information to the trail staff. The NPS advertised meetings in West Hawaii Today and Hawaii Tribune-Herald. Large signs were posted on meeting days in high-visibility areas on adjacent roadways and on buildings where the meetings were held to encourage walk-by and drive-by participation. Meeting announcements also appeared in the Ala Kahakai NHT and E Man Na Ala Held newsletters. Altogether nine open house scoping meetings were hosted between March 22 and June 28, 2003. At the meetings, attendees were encouraged to submit formal input through a Mana'o Form, a questionnaire about how the trail should be managed. A total of 200 people representing the general public, private landowners, trail advocacy groups, native Hawaiian organizations, and state, county, and federal agencies attended these meetings. About 25 Mana'o Forms were returned to the trail office. In addition, the planning team met with numerous individuals, community groups, private landowners, and government agency representatives to understand their concerns and visions for the Ala Kahakai NHT. Using the information for all these sources, the planning team prepared draft versions of the purpose and significance statements, management prescriptions, and management alternatives. Between July 2003 and March 2004, the planning team developed five preliminary alternatives for future management based on information gained from the scoping process: No Action, Single Ala Kahakai Trail alternative, Ahupua'a Trail Systems alternative, Historic Trail Clusters alternative, and Public Lands alternative. The NPS provided a booklet to the public describing these alternatives and inviting comment. In addition, the NPS conducted nine public meetings between April 17 and June 19, 2004, to gather comments on the alternatives. The comment period for the draft alternatives closed on June 25, 2004. Subsequently the planning team prepared a draft alternatives document that eliminated alternative E because it was favored in public meetings only as a step to completing the entire trail. Eventually, alternative D was eliminated for the same reason. In December 2006, to ensure that issues were properly stated and addressed, an internal review draft of this document was sent to the four national parks on Hawaii Island, other National Park Service reviewers, and reviewers in Hawaii who have been involved in the study process and have knowledge of the Ala Kahakai NHT. These reviewers' comments were incorporated into the public review draft. Commenting On The Draft EIS: Six public workshops on the proposed plan will be hosted during the week of November 5-10, 2007 at various locations on the island of Hawaii. Locations, dates, and other workshop details will be advertised by direct mailing and notices placed in the local newspapers. All interested individuals, organizations, and agencies will be encouraged to participate and provide comments, suggestions, and additional information. All written comments must be postmarked not later than 60 days following publication in the Federal Register by EPA of their notice of filing of the Draft EIS (as soon as this date can be confirmed it will be announced on the park's Web site, and included in workshop mailings). Written comments on the Draft EIS/CMP should be addressed to Superintendent, Ala Kahakai NHT, 73-4786 Kanalani Street, 14, Kailua-Kona, HI 96740. Questions at this time regarding the comprehensive management plan and EIS planning process or inquiries about public meetings should be addressed to the superintendent either by mail or by telephone at (805) 326-6012. The document will be sent directly to those who have requested it, and will also be available at the park headquarters and local libraries, or electronically at http:// parkplanning.nps.gov/alka (an electronic public comment form is also provided at this Web site). Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire commentincluding your personal identifying informationmay 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. Decision: Following careful analysis of public and agency comments on the Draft EIS, it is anticipated at this time that the final EIS would be available in winter of 2008. As a delegated EIS, the official responsible for the final decision is the Regional Director, Pacific West Region. A Record of Decision would not be prepared sooner than 30 days following release of the Final EIS/CMP; notice of the decision will be posted in the Federal Register and announced in local and regional newspapers. Following approval of the comprehensive management plan and EIS, the official responsible for undertaking implementation of the plan will be the Superintendent, Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail.
Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement; Record of Decision; Flight 93 National Memorial, Pennsylvania
Pursuant to Sec. 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852, 853, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the National Park Service announces the availability of the Record of Decision for the Final General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (Final GMP/EIS) for the Flight 93 National Memorial in Pennsylvania. On July 23, 2007, the Regional Director, Northeast Region, approved the Record of Decision for the project, selecting Alternative 2Preferred Design Alternative, which was described on pages II-14 to II-23 of the Final GMP/EIS and announced to the public in a Notice of Availability published in the Federal Register on June 21, 2007. The selected alternative and one other alternative, Alternative 1 No Action, were analyzed in the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements. Each alternative was evaluated as to how it would guide the development and future management of the national memorial over the next 15 to 20 years with regard to the following issues: (1) The types of management actions required for the development, protection and preservation of park resources; (2) The types and general intensities of development (including the memorial features, visitor facilities, transportation and access requirements) associated with the public enjoyment and use of the area, including general locations, timing of implementation and anticipated costs; (3) Visitor carrying capacities and implementation commitments for major aspects of the memorial; and (4) Potential modifications to the external boundaries of the park, if any, and the reasons for the proposed changes. The full range of foreseeable environmental consequences was assessed and disclosed for historic and cultural resources, natural resources, land use, transportation, socioeconomic impacts, visual and aesthetic impacts, energy requirements, and public health and safety. The NPS has selected Alternative 2 because it best fulfills the goals of the Flight 93 National Memorial's Missions Statement, as well as the purpose and intent of the Flight 93 National Memorial Act. The selected alternative commemorates the actions of the passengers and crew by creating a designed memorial landscape, which blends with the contour of the land and enhances the physical features of the site. It protects the final resting places of the passengers and crew and places special attention on providing an appropriate setting for the memorial. A new visitor facility will provide for interpretive exhibits, public education and outreach, and visitor services. The public will have a broader range of opportunities to learn about the deeds of the passengers and crew members and the events that occurred on September 11, 2001. The selected alternative also provides a venue for visitors to get closer to the crash site while removing parking and other visitor support facilities from the views around the crash site. Under the selected alternative, visitor traffic will be contained within the site and removed from the neighboring villages to create safer roadway conditions and significantly improve conditions for residents living along these routes. The selected alternative will not result in the impairment of resources and values. The construction costs to build the memorial features and the related infrastructure would be shared through a partnership involving the public, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the federal government. The Record of Decision includes a statement of the decision made, synopses of other alternatives considered, the basis for the decision, a finding of no impairment of park resources and values, and an overview of public involvement in the decision-making process. This decision is the result of a public planning process that began with publication of a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on December 10, 2003. The official responsible for this decision is the NPS Regional Director, Northeast Region.
Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program Advisory Council Renewal
This notice is published in accordance with Section 9(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix). Following consultation with the General Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the Secretary of the Interior has formally renewed the Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program Advisory Council to provide advice and recommendations on program guidance relating to Route 6 Corridor preservation. Public Law 106-45 (16 U.S.C. 461 note), August 10, 1999, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the National Park Service, to provide a program of technical assistance and grants that will set priorities for the preservation of the Route 66 corridor, which passes through Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. Members of the committee represent states through which Route 66 passes, non-profit Route 66 preservation entities and other interested organizations.
Record of Decision on the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the General Management Plan, Rock Creek Park and the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway, Washington, DC
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the National Park Service (NPS) announces the availability of the Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the General Management Plan, Rock Creek Park and the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway, Washington, DC. On June 6, 2007 the National Capital Regional Director approved the Record of Decision for the General Management Plan for the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Specifically, the NPS has selected the preferred alternative (Alternative A) as described in the Final General Management Plan for the Environmental Impact Statement based on consideration of economic, environmental, technical, and other factors. The selected alternative and three other alternatives, including a no-action alternative, were analyzed in the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements. Each alternative considered (a) how traffic should be managed in the park and on the parkway; (b) the most appropriate levels of service and locations for visitor interpretation and education in the park; (c) the appropriate balance between rehabilitation of historic structures and cultural landscapes and preservation of natural resources; and (d) the most appropriate locations to support park administration and operations functions to minimize resource disturbance. The full range of foreseeable environmental consequences was assessed. The NPS believes Alternative A would best accomplish its goals for managing Rock Creek Park and the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway. Alternative A was selected by the NPS based on its ability to maintain traditional visitor experiences and activities, enhance resources protection, improve control over non- recreational use of park roads to heighten safety and the quality of the visitor experience, and optimize the use of structures for park purposes. The selected alternative will not result in the impairment of resources and values. The most difficult decision to be made in this general management planning process was the management of traffic on the park road system because these park roads are recognized historic resources and are also the primary means for most visitors to experience the park. They are also heavily used as commuter routes. Under the selected alternative, the existing park roadway system will be retained and non-recreational through-traffic will be accommodated. It continues weekday auto travel throughout the park, but will use traffic-calming and speed enforcement measures to reduce traffic speeds and volumes to improve visitor safety and better control traffic volumes and speeds through the park. Speed tables and additional traffic signs will be installed on Beach Drive in the gorge area. The selected alternative will also enhance interpretation and education opportunities and improve the use of park resources, especially cultural resources. It generally retains the current scope of visitor uses. Additional aspects of this alternative include trail improvement; rehabilitation of the Peirce Mill complex to better focus on history; the moving of park administrative offices from the Peirce- Klingle Mansion at Linnean Hill which will be rehabilitated for adaptive use compatible with park values; the relocation of the U.S. Park Police substation from the Lodge House on Beach Drive with the Lodge House converted to a visitor contact station; and that the nature center will be rehabilitated and expanded, and the planetarium upgraded. The Record of Decision includes a statement of the decision made, synopses of other alternatives considered, the basis for the decision, a finding of no impairment of park resources and values and an overview of public involvement in the decision-making process. This decision is the result of a public planning process that began in 1996. The official responsible for this decision is the NPS Regional Director, National Capital Region.
Cape Cod National Seashore Hunting Program, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Cape Cod National Seashore, Massachusetts
Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 83 Stat. 852,853, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. section 4332(2)(c), the National Park Service announces the availability of the Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Cape Cod National Seashore Hunting Program, Cape Cod National Seashore, Massachusetts. On September 18, 2007, the Regional Director, Northeast Region approved the Record of Decision for the project. As soon as practicable, and as described in the Record of Decision, the National Park Service will begin to implement the Preferred Alternative contained in the FEIS issued on August 10, 2007. The following course of action will occur under the preferred alternative. Cape Cod National Seashore will increase hunting opportunities for native upland game bird species; apply adaptive management to phase out the pheasant stocking and hunting program; simplify and clearly delineate hunting areas and increase the ``no- hunting'' safety buffers along bike paths; expand hunting-related outreach to hunting and non-hunting users; and undertake cooperative monitoring and management of game species. This course of action and two alternatives were analyzed in the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements. The full range of foreseeable environmental consequences was assessed. The Record of Decision 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 finding on impairment of park resources and values, and an overview of public involvement in the decision-making process.
Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Impact Statement for the North Shore Road in Great Smoky Mountains National Park
The National Park Service (NPS) in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) announces the availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the North Shore Road in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, North Carolina. This document will be available for public review pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and NPS policy in Director's Order Number 12 (Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision Making). The primary purpose of this FEIS is to finalize the documentation of the environmental analysis of the five alternatives studied in the document; to address substantive comments made on the Draft EIS; and to disclose the Agency's Preferred Alternative. The purpose of the proposed action is to discharge and satisfy any obligations on the part of the United States that presently exist as the result of the July 30, 1943, Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Swain County, North Carolina, and the State of North Carolina. The need for the project is to determine whether or not it is feasible to complete the road and to evaluate other alternatives that would satisfy the obligation. The FEIS analyzed five alternatives for meeting the purpose and need of the project. The no-action alternative would continue current management practices and policies into the future. The monetary settlement (the preferred alternative) would provide Swain County, North Carolina, with a monetary settlement to satisfy and discharge the obligations of the MOA. Each of the other three action alternatives would allow various levels of development and/or road construction within the project study area of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Under the Laurel Branch Picnic Area alternative, a day-use area on the north side of existing Lake View Road would be constructed. Outdoor facilities would include a multi-use picnic shelter, picnic tables, several loop trails, drinking fountains, and restrooms. Under the Partial-Build Alternative to Bushnell, up to 8 miles (12.9 km) of new roadway from the existing tunnel west to the vicinity of the former Bushnell settlement would be constructed. This alternative would provide a boat-launching ramp and restricted boat dock. Located near the terminus of the new roadway would be a multi-use picnic shelter and picnic tables, a backcountry permit station, an information kiosk, restrooms, and a parking area. Exhibit/museum space would be designed to highlight local heritage of the area and could include concession opportunities. Under the Northern Shore Corridor Alternative, 29 to 34.3 miles of new roadway to the vicinity of Fontana Dam would be constructed. It would connect Lake View Road to NC Hwy. 28. This alternative would include provisions for the development of an auto- tour guide describing the historic and natural points of interest along the route. Also, restrooms would be built at appropriate locations. The NPS Preferred Alternative is the Monetary Settlement Alternative. The Monetary Settlement would ensure that resources of Great Smoky Mountains National Park and the Appalachian National Scenic Trail would be unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. It would fulfill project goals and objectives including the protection of natural, cultural, and recreational resources.