![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Homestead National Monument of America
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: January 18, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 11)]
[Notices]
[Page 2641-2643]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18ja00-88]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Homestead National Monument of America
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Record of Decision, General Management Plan and Environmental
Impact Statement, Homestead National Monument of America, Nebraska.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the regulations promulgated by the
Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1505.2), the Department of the
Interior, National Park Service, has prepared a Record of Decision on
the Final General Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact
Statement for the Homestead National Monument of America in Gage
County, Nebraska.
DATES: The Acting Regional Director, Midwest Region approved the
Record of Decision, on December 22, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Superintendent, Homestead National
Monument of America, 8523 W. State Highway 4, Beatrice, Nebraska 68310-
6743, telephone 402-223-3514.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
The National Park Service has prepared the Final General Management
Plan/Abbreviated Final Environmental Impact Statement (FGMP/AFEIS) for
Homestead National Monument of America, Nebraska. The FGMP/AFEIS
proposes management direction for the park for the next 10-20 years and
documents the anticipated effects of the selected action and other
alternatives on the human environment, including natural and cultural
resources. This Record of Decision is a concise statement of the
decisions made, other alternatives considered, the basis for the
decision, the environmentally preferable alternative, and the
mitigating measures developed to avoid or minimize environmental harm.
Decision
After careful consideration of environmental impacts, costs, and
comments from the public, agencies, and technical evaluations, the
National Park Service recommends for implementation the selected action
evaluated in the Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact
Statement.
Summary of the Selected Action
The goal of the selected alternative, which was identified as
Alternative C, Option 1 in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, is
to significantly change the physical arrangement of facilities and
operational functions of the monument. The alternative represents a
comprehensive alteration to the monument's current operational form and
to visitor orientation in order to fulfill the legislative requirements
of the monument. With this selected action, the key monument facilities
will be relocated to a location outside of the existing 100-year
frequency flood hazard zone. A minor boundary expansion will be pursued
to acquire land outside existing boundaries that would be necessary for
the facilities. Management zones will provide guidance for managing
specific areas for desired visitor experience and resource conditions
(see p. 32 of the FGMP).
The selected action calls for the creation of a new ``Homestead
Heritage Center'' to house the monument's collections, interpretive
exhibits, theatre, public research facilities, and administrative
offices. This new ``Homestead Heritage Center'' will be located on the
eastern side of the monument.
The ``Homestead Heritage Center'' will require a separate research
facility within the building to act as a repository for the monument's
homestead records and other items of homesteading literature, as
required by the monument's enabling legislation. In addition, the
center will have a parking lot designed to accommodate 50 cars and 10
buses or campers.
The selected action also calls for the existing visitor center/
museum to be modified and adaptively reused as an ``Education Center''.
This center will serve as a location where students of all ages could
engage in learning more about the homestead story. A ``School of
Traditional Homesteading Folk Arts'' program will be established to
give the public an opportunity to learn old homesteading folk crafts.
In addition to a range of educational activities that will take place
in this center, special events and interpretive programs will also be
conducted here. Distance learning technology will also connect the
center to schools near and far. The areas to the back of the present
facility will be used to house maintenance functions. The remaining
offices will be used by visiting instructors or modified to serve as
classrooms. The exhibits presently in use will be removed and that area
converted to classrooms. The existing parking lot appears to be
suitable to meet the foreseeable needs of this facility.
In addition, the management prescriptions contained within the
selected action will seek to promote the establishment of a ``Homestead
Heritage Parkway''. This parkway concept is proposed to form an
interpretive linkage between the monument, including the Freeman
School, and the surrounding rural countryside and communities to
highlight today's visible and tangible results of implementation of the
Homestead Act. The principal interpretive and educational theme of the
parkway will be agriculture. With comparisons made to modern farm
operations. These stories will be communicated through the use of signs
and traveler information radio broadcasts.
The creation of this parkway as one of the monument's interpretive
tools will depend on voluntary partnerships with the local governments
and landowners along the identified highway segment. It is important to
note that the NPS is not recommending a formal federal designation for
this parkway. The concept of the ``Homestead Heritage Parkway''
presumes the rerouting of a segment of State Highway 4 outside the
monument's boundary. After this realignment has occurred, the abandoned
segment of State Highway 4 will become an access road for the monument
and for local residents. Existing truck and commuter traffic will be
rerouted on a comparable replacement segment of State Highway 4 nearby.
The ``Homestead Heritage Parkway'' will begin where the access road
(the abandoned segment of State Highway 4) enters the eastern boundary
of the monument and extend to the Freeman School. The NPS envisions the
eventual and voluntary extension of the ``Homestead Heritage Parkway''
concept from the Freeman School west along the access road to where it
rejoins State Highway 4. The NPS also endorses the parkway's extension
to the east from the monument to the City of Beatrice (meeting at the
junction of State Highways 136 and 4 in West Beatrice), however the NPS
is not recommending any change to the currently designated speed limit
for that segment. It is possible that a public biking and/or hiking
path could be connected to the monument.
[[Page 2642]]
Other Alternatives Considered
Alternative A is the no-action, or status quo, alternative. This
alternative would have restricted the monument in achieving its
mission; however, it does provide a baseline for comparison of the
other alternatives. This alternative called for the continuation of
current levels and patterns of National Park Service stewardship and
management with regard to natural, historic, and cultural resources at
the monument.
Each of the following action alternatives were designed to achieve
all desired futures for the monument, including those related to
natural, historic, and cultural resources enhancement and protection,
and visitor experiences. The principle difference between alternatives
is the location of the primary monument facilities.
Alternative B prescribed certain alterations to the existing
pattern of facilities, stewardship, and management. The monument's
natural, historic, and cultural resources would have remained generally
as they are now. The existing monument facilities would have remained
in their present locations but would have been flood-proofed to
withstand a 100-year flood event.
Like the selected action Alternative C, Option 1, Alternative C,
Option 2 proposed significant changes to the physical arrangement and
operational functions of the monument. This alternative also
represented comprehensive alterations to the homestead resources. The
alternative also would have fulfilled the legislative requirements of
the monument. Alternative C, Option 2 would have significantly changed
the location of key monument facilities to a location outside the
existing 100-year frequency flood hazard zone but within the existing
monument boundary. It also proposed the creation of a new ``Homestead
Heritage Center'' to house the monument's collections, interpretive
displays, public research facilities, and administrative offices. The
existing visitor center would have been adaptively reused as an
``Education Center'' for special events, programs, and educational
opportunities. In addition, it proposed to form a linkage between the
monument and the surrounding countryside and communities through the
establishment of an approximately six mile ``Homestead Heritage
Parkway'' which would highlight today's visible results of
implementation of the Homestead Act.
Environmentally Preferable 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 National
Environmental Policy Act. 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) National
Environmental Policy Act Regulations,'' 1981).
The environmentally preferable alternative is the selected action,
Alternative C, Option 1. This alternative best meets the full range of
national environmental policy goals as stated in NEPA's section 101.
The selected action (1) maximizes protection of natural and cultural
resources while maintaining a wide range of neutral and beneficial uses
of the environment without degradation; (2) maintains an environment
that supports diversity and variety of individual choice; (3) achieves
a balance between human population and resource use; and (4) improves
resource sustainability.
The selected action removes the monument's threatened existing
visitor center complex, with its associated resources, exhibits, and
operational facilities, from its location within the 100-year
floodplain of nearby Cub Creek. The removal of these resources and
functions to a different yet nearby location also minimizes existing
safety and resource concerns associated with the state highway crossing
the monument. In addition, the selected action best minimizes impacts
to and developmental incursions into the monument's natural resources
(principally, its reconstructed tallgrass prairie) and minimizes
impacts to and developmental incursions into the monument's cultural
resources in the form of its historic original 1862 homestead tract. It
also maximizes public and visitor safety by prescribing the relocation
of a segment of the existing state highway to an alignment outside
monument boundaries. This action will significantly reduce the volume
and mix of traffic on State Highway 4, will improve the qualities of
visitor safety and experience, and will result in a reduced physical
intrusion into the monument's boundary.
Measures To Minimize Harm
All practicable measures to avoid or minimize environmental impacts
that could result from implementation of the selected action have been
identified and incorporated into the selected action. They are
presented in detail in the FGMP/AFEIS. However, due to the programmatic
nature of the general management plan, specific implementation projects
will be reviewed as necessary for compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and other
applicable federal and state laws and regulations prior to project
clearance and implementation. Specific measures to minimize
environmental harm also will be included in implementation plans called
for by the FGMP/AFEIS. These plans include, but are not limited to,
resource management plans, land protection plans, historic structure
reports, and schematic design documents.
Basis for Decision
The selected alternative best supports the park's purpose and
significance, and accomplishes the statutory mission of the National
Park Service to provide long-term protection of park resources while
allowing for appropriate levels of visitor use and means of visitor
enjoyment. The selected alternative also does the best job of
addressing issues identified during public scoping while minimizing
environmental harm. Other factors considered in the decision were
public and resource benefits gained for the cost incurred and extensive
public comment.
Public Involvement
The NPS has taken a comprehensive approach to public involvement
during the development of this GMP. To date, the NPS has issued two
newsletters for the general public and conducted a series of public
meetings. The NPS has consulted with state and local government
officials, including the State Historic Preservation Office. American
Indian groups with affiliations to the monument have received the
newsletters and a copy of the draft plan for comment.
Newsletter No. 1 was mailed in December 1997. Newsletter No. 2 was
distributed in March 1998. Nearly 600 newsletters were in each mailing.
The series of public meetings were conducted in January 1998. Two
meetings were held in Beatrice, Nebraska, near the monument and one in
Lincoln, Nebraska, 40 miles away. Over 20 people attended the three
meetings. In April 1998, an ``open house,'' was held at the Monument.
Twenty-five individuals, park neighbors, government officials, and
community members attended this
[[Page 2643]]
``open house''. All public meetings received coverage by local and
regional media sources. Monument neighbors have been involved
throughout the process.
The GMP planning team contacted the Pawnee Tribe of Oklahoma in an
attempt to identify tribal concerns relative to this GMP/EIS. In
addition, comments were sought through extensive mailings of
newsletters and media coverage. No response was received from the
tribe. Because of the Pawnee's long-standing cultural affiliation with
this area of Nebraska, the NPS will continue to keep the tribe informed
of important stages of this planning process and of plans to implement
the preferred alternative throughout the GMP planning process.
Over 600 news letters announcing the Draft General Management Plan
and Environmental Impact Statement for Homestead National Monument of
America were mailed May 4, 1999. More than 200 copies of the full draft
document were distributed to agencies, organizations and individuals.
The document was also made available to the general public at the
Beatrice Public Library and at Homestead National Monument of America.
The National Park Service conducted two public meetings in May 1999,
one meeting was held at the Beatrice Public Library May 25 while the
second meeting was held at the Charles H. Gere Library in Lincoln,
Nebraska May 26. An additional public open house was held June 29, 1999
at Homestead National Monument of America to discuss the Draft General
Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement.
The Beatrice public meeting had 43 people in attendance; 14 people
attended the Lincoln public meeting. One person attended the meeting
held in June, at Homestead National Monument of America.
A 60-day review period (May 4, 1999 through July 10, 1999) was
designated for receiving comments on the draft plan and EIS. Fifteen
written comments were received. At the end of the review period, the
comments were reviewed and substantive comments were identified. The
Final General Management Plan (FGMP) and an Abbreviated Final
Environmental Impact Statement (AFEIS) were made available to the
public on November 21, 1999. The 30-day no action period required by
NEPA regulations commenced on that date. Approximately 39 copies of the
FGMP/AFEIS were distributed to agencies, local governments,
organizations, persons who commented on the draft GMP, and others who
requested the document. The FGMP/AFEIS contains a complete summary of
the public involvement process and substantive comments received.
Conclusion
A notice of availability for the FGMP/AFEIS was published by the
Environmental Protection Agency in the Federal Register on November 6,
1998. The 30-day no-action period ended on December 20, 1999. No public
comments were received during the no action period.
The above factors and considerations justify the selection of the
final plan, as described as Alternative C, Option 1, in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement. The Final General Management Plan is
hereby approved.
Dated: December 22, 1999.
Catherine A. Damon,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 00-999 Filed 1-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P