CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
AND
PREPARATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTScoping
Scoping for Manzanar General Management Plan was initiated with a Federal Register notice on April 23, 1993 and continued until June 30, 1993. Three public scoping meetings were held (one in Independence and two in Los Angeles) and comments were recorded. Additional comments were provided in 27 letters, and in petitions signed by 275 individuals. The petitions asked that the site truthfully reflect the experiences of the Japanese Americans confined in the relocation centers.
Review of the Draft General Management Plan and Environmental Impact StatementThe draft document was mailed to interested groups and individuals on February 7, 1996 with a comment closing date of May 3, 1996. Availability of the draft document was formally announced by the Environmental Protection Agency in the Federal Register dated February 23, with the minimum required 60-day period of availability ending April 23. A Park Service notice of availability appeared in the Federal Register of February 20. News releases announcing the availability of the document and the scheduling of public meetings were broadly distributed in the Owens Valley and regional media.
The following agencies and organizations received copies of the draft document:
Bureau of Land Management, California State Office, Sacramento
Bureau of Land Management, Bishop Resource Area, Bishop
U.S. Fish and Wild life Service
Regional Office, Portland
Division of Ecological Services, Ventura
Environmental Protection Agency
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
California State Clearinghouse
California Dept. of Transportation
California State Historic Preservation Officer
California Native American Heritage Commission
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
Inyo County
County Administrator
Public Works
Eastern California Museum
Library
Manzanar Committee
American Society of Landscape Architects
Japanese American Citizens League
Japanese-American National Museum
Japanese-American National Historical Society
Paiute/Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony
Big Pine Band of Owens Valley Paiute/Shoshone Indians
For Independence Indian Community of Paiute Indians
Paiute/Shoshone Indians of the Lone Pine Community
Owens Valley Paiute-Shoshone Indian Cultural Center
Lone Pine Tribal Council
Bishop Tribal Council
Big Pine Tribal Council
Bishop MuseumIn addition, several hundred copies of the draft plan and EIS were sent to interested individuals.
Four public meetings on the draft plan and EIS were conducted March 12-16. Sites for the meetings were Bishop, Independence, Gardena, and Los Angeles, all located in California.
Public comments on the draft GMP/EIS were received and recorded at the four public meetings, and by written communications to the Park Service and Secretary of Interior.
The four public meetings were attended by 178 persons, 43 of whom made comments for the record. A total of 194 written communications on the draft were received during the comment period. These communications included two petitions, 135 copies of a form letter, and 57 individually prepared letters.
Content of Public Review Comments
Comment on the GMP/EIS was highly polarized with most reviewers opting either for the proposed action (Alternative C), with an expanded boundary, or for deauthorization of the site as a unit of the National Park System.
In addition to statements of preference among the alternatives and comments on the substance of the plan, many reviewers offered extraneous but often emotional expressions regarding the moral correctness and military necessity of the relocation program and the use of certain emotive terms such as "concentration camp". Several respondents also expressed apprehension that NPS would not factually present the true conditions at the camp, but would subjugate facts to "political correctness" and the avoidance of controversy. This concern was expressed both by those who support the existence of Manzanar National Historic Site and by those who regret its authorization. In addition, certain historical facts related to the site are strongly disputed by some individuals.
135 copies of an individually signed and submitted form letter were received which:
1. Recommended selection of Alternative C.
2. Urged further expansion of the boundary to include 800 acres.
3. Requested an immediate increased operating budget for the site.
4. Urged prompt action to implement the plan.A copy of the form letter is printed in Appendix 7.
A petition circulated in the Bishop area, signed by 109 persons, expressed the desire that Manzanar not be a "monument for Japanese Relocation Camps" and expressed the opinion that the costs of the site would exceed income or revenue.
Another petition circulated in the Bishop area, signed by 55 persons, asked that the site be operated as economically as possible and that American Indian and pioneer history be given equivalent coverage to the internment period.
Copies of both petitions are printed in Appendix 7.
A total of 57 individual letters were received from agencies, organizations, and individuals. Twenty-five of these letters recommended selection of Alternative C and noted various issues. A total of 8 letters indicated overall opposition to the site itself being in the National Park System for various reasons. The remaining 24 letters did not express preferences among the alternatives but offered opinions regarding the propriety of the relocation program, the use of terms to describe the site, critiques of the analysis of environmental impacts, and specific suggestions for additional features or programs at the site.
Of the forty-three persons making oral statements at the public meetings, a total of 22 expressed support for Alternative C, while 3 persons indicated a preference that the site not exist. The remaining 18 persons offered views on various aspects of the alternatives or the appropriate uses of terms. Manzanar Advisory Commission member Vernon Miller polled the attendees at both the Gardena and Los Angeles meetings re their support for Alternative C and the show of hands revealed nearly unanimous support among the 81 persons attending those meetings.
Copies of all written statements, as well as tapes of oral comments received at the public review meetings regarding the plan, are available for inspection at the office of the superintendent of Manzanar National Historic Site.
National Park Service Response to Comments
Copies of letters encompassing all substantive issues are printed in Appendix 7 along with the National Park Service response to those issues, indicating to what extent they are addressed in the final plan. The issues in the letters are inclusive of issues surfaced in oral statement at the public meetings.
A number of issues were surfaced during the public review process which are no relevant to the general management planning process and cannot be resolved at this time. These are outlined below.
A number of respondents seemed to be under the impression that the establishment of a National Historic Site was under consideration. In fact, the site has been established by Congress and the current planning process I intended to determine how best to preserve the site and make it available for public use.
Several respondents indicated concern that NPS interpretation at the site would misrepresent the conditions at the camp by either understating the hardships on the internees, or by overstating the hardships. The general management plan proposes general areas of interpretive coverage but does not define the details of interpretive treatments and programs. The Park Service intends to interpret the site in a factual manner, supported by extensive historical research which is underway. As interpretive materials are developed, the Park Service will actively solicit critical evaluations from the public toward the end of providing historically accurate information.
A number of comments were directed toward either promoting or deterring the use of the term "concentration camp" or "internment camp" with respect to Manzanar. The choice of descriptive terminology is not a general management planning issue but rather an issue, which may surface in the development of interpretive media. Terminology is imprecise, confusing, and emotionally laden with respect to Manzanar. It is noted that while the area was officially designated as the Manzanar War Relocation Center, it has historically been widely referred to as an internment camp. Also, the use of the term "concentration camp" to describe the relocation centers was common in the WWII era not only in the public media but also in statements by prominent government officials. Consequently it may be expected that the entire range of terms will surface in the site's interpretive media. In the final analysis, the Park Service may find it necessary and illuminating to create an exhibit on terminology to explain the legal and popular uses of various terms, their application to the relocation program, and the emotional implications.