[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 5, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46130-46132]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-21964]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Record of Decision; Final Environmental Impact Statement/General
Management Plan; Grand Canyon National Park; Coconino and Mohave
Counties, AZ
Summary: Pursuant to Sec. 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 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
Environmental Impact Statement/General Management Plan for Grand Canyon
National Park, Coconino and Mohave Counties, Arizona. This Record of
Decision is a concise statement of what decisions were made, what
alternatives were considered, the basis for the decision, and the
mitigating measures developed to avoid or minimize environmental
impacts.
Decision: The National Park Service will implement the proposed
general management plan for Grand Canyon National Park, as detailed in
Alternative 2 of the Final General Management Plan and Environmental
Impact Statement issued in July 1995. The draft plan and environmental
impact statement was issued in March 1995. The proposal is described
below as the Selected Action.
Selected Action: The selected action is a comprehensive proposal
for future management and use of the park, including a regional,
ecosystem planning focus, park management zones, visitor experience,
expanded provision of alternative visitor transportation services,
interpretation planning, park operations, and park facilities
development.
Summary of Actions: The regional context of Grand Canyon National
Park will be emphasized, and proposals for resource preservation and
visitor use will take into account environmental effects on the park as
well as the region. Planning outside the park will be done
cooperatively, with an emphasis on disseminating information,
preserving regional and park resources, and providing a quality visitor
experience. The National Park Service will work jointly with adjacent
entities to provide for many park needs outside park boundaries. A
gateway information center, some community services, and up to 500
employee housing units will be provided in Tusayan. The most
appropriate locations for facilities will be considered in a regional
context, taking into consideration principles of sustainable design and
the need to preserve resources while providing for a quality visitor
experience.
Alternative modes of transportation (public transit, hiking, and
biking) will be emphasized within the park. A primary orientation
center and public transit hub will be constructed near Mather Point.
From there several shuttle routes will provide efficient and quiet
visitor transportation to Grand Canyon Village and other points on the
South Rim. Visitor parking and a shuttle system will also be
established on the North Rim.
To minimize impacts on natural and cultural resources within the
park, existing structures will be adaptively reused, and required new
facilities will be built in previously disturbed areas wherever
possible. The Kachina and Thunderbird lodges will be removed and the
number and size of gift shops on the South Rim will be reduced. The RV
campground and the existing helicopter base will be redesigned. Some
disturbed areas will be revegetated.
To ensure a quality experience, the number of visitors admitted to
certain areas will be limited during peak visitation periods based on
recommendations derived from a carrying capacity monitoring program.
The methodology for determining use limits will be the same throughout
the developed areas of the park; however, visitor use limits for
specific areas will vary considerably, and visitor use may be limited
sooner in some areas than in others. Day use on the South Rim and the
corridor trails will not need to be limited during the life of this
plan, provided the recommended alternative visitor transportation
services are fully funded and operational; day visitation on the North
Rim will be limited by the year 2005 or 2010, depending on the
effectiveness of management actions; and day use at Tuweep may be
limited during peak times. In areas where reservations become
necessary, visitors will be able to obtain reservations ahead of time
(their reservations will be checked at park entrances). A monitoring
system will be established to measure resource impacts, facility use,
visitor satisfaction, and levels of visitor attendance in each park
developed area. The reservation system will be adjusted as needed.
Summary of Impacts: A stable situation for the future will be
provided for all the developed areas of the park, significantly
improving management's ability to preserve and protect the natural and
cultural resources, provide a high-quality visitor experience, and
ensure quality living and operating conditions for park employees. Most
development will in-fill on already disturbed areas. Historic
structures will be adaptively reused, resource damage will be
minimized, and local economies will be enhanced. Sustainable planning,
design, and implementation will be encouraged within a regional
context.
Alternatives Considered
No-Action Alternative--Existing Conditions / Ongoing Programs
Summary of Actions: Unlimited day visitation would continue in all
park developed areas, with nearly every visitor facility in developed
areas of the South Rim continuing to be
[[Page 46131]]
overcapacity during peak use periods. No major facilities would be
built, and no major park functions would be relocated. Any required
facility changes would be done in or adjacent to existing disturbed
areas. The number of overnight accommodations, campsites, and all other
visitor services remain the same in each developed area. Minor
adjustments in management would be made to help reduce resource damage
and to provide a safer visitor experience. Planning would be focused
inside the park, primarily to solve existing problems. Issues related
to planning and land management practices in areas immediately outside
the park would be handled individually as the need arose, without an
overall area vision or cooperative regional planning effort to guide
the direction. Limited cooperative planning to distribute regional
information to visitors would occur.
Summary of Impacts: Uncontrolled growth would continue within the
park, with only limited improvements to visitor services. Damage to
natural and cultural resources would continue to worsen, and the
visitor experience would become degraded. Communication with visitors
to help them plan their trip so they could have a quality experience in
the park would continue to be minimal, resulting in negative
experiences for park visitors. Extensive quantities of substandard
housing would remain, along with an ever-increasing shortage of park
housing, forcing more and more employees to find housing in adjacent
areas, perhaps long distances from the workplace. The lack of
operational space would become severe, reducing employee effectiveness.
Over the long term the economy of the area could be damaged due to the
worsening image of Grand Canyon National Park and the poor visitor
experience.
Alternative 1--Minimum Requirements
Summary of Actions: Unlimited day visitation would continue in all
developed areas of the park until visitor congestion, resource damage,
and public safety warranted restricting access during peak visitation.
This would be accomplished by implementing reservation systems based on
the capacity of existing parking and eating facilities on the South and
North Rims. Regional information programs would explain the park's
reservation systems to visitors. Overnight accommodations would not be
affected. Visitor use at Tuweep and on the corridor trails would not be
limited under this alternative.
Existing land use patterns would be retained--no major facilities
would be built, no major park functions would be relocated, and most
park facilities would remain where they are now. A few minor facilities
would be added. Any required facility changes would be done in or
adjacent to existing disturbed areas. Planning would be focused inside
the park, primarily to solve existing problems. Issues related to
planning and land management practices in adjacent areas outside the
park would be handled individually as the need arose, without an
overall area vision or integrated regional planning effort to guide the
direction.
Summary of Impacts: Park resource damage and a worsening visitor
experience at Grand Canyon would be alleviated by limiting the number
of people visiting developed areas on the North and South Rims at any
one time. Tuweep would continue to experience uncontrolled use,
possibly leading to deteriorated natural resources and a degraded
visitor experience over the long term. Some impacted areas would be
rehabilitated, helping to restore resources within the park. The
visitor experience would improve compared to the no-action alternative
because fewer people would be competing to use facilities. However,
visitors would continue to be frustrated by not being able to easily
find places they want to see. Information, orientation, and education
about park themes would remain ineffective because of inadequate and
poorly located facilities. Visitors would not be well distributed
throughout the park, reducing the number of people who could enjoy the
park at any one time, and more and more visitors would be turned away.
An increasing number of employees would not be able to live in the
park, and many would have to find their own housing, often over an hour
from the park. Housing in some developed areas would be improved, and
the need for additional housing would be reduced by limiting
visitation. Some improvements would occur outside the park due to NPS
assistance to outside entities for regional visitor information.
However, many park problems would fall to regional entities, for
example, visitors parking outside the park and using private transit
services to enter the park, disappointed visitors being turned away at
the gate, and housing for park employees.
Alternative 3--Reduced Development Within the Park
Summary of Actions: Alternative 3 would emphasize the preservation
of park resources by placing all new facilities and relocating many
existing functions outside the park. Cooperative regional planning
would ensure that NPS functions occurring outside park boundaries
demonstrated environmentally sensitive planning and design. The
National Park Service would expand its regional information services,
as described for alternative 2. On the South Rim all day visitor
vehicles would be removed, and a major public transit system would be
provided. No new lands within the park would be disturbed, and historic
uses of existing structures would be retained wherever possible.
Overnight accommodations would be reduced on the South Rim but
increased on the North Rim by adaptively reusing historic structures.
Planning for the park would be done in a regional context to minimize
negative impacts resulting from park uses being placed in areas outside
the park. Communications would be expanded, as described for
alternative 2. Wherever possible, facilities placed outside the park
would be clustered in disturbed areas and linked to existing systems.
Alternative modes of transportation would be emphasized regionally as
well as in major high use areas of the park, the same as alternative 2.
Summary of Impacts: There would be an emphasis on preserving
natural and cultural resources within the park, and many park disturbed
areas would be rehabilitated. The visitor experience within the park
would be highly controlled on the South Rim, and strict limitations of
the number of visitors on the North Rim and at Tuweep would force many
visitors to plan far in advance to experience those areas. Many more
acres would be disturbed outside the park than any other alternative as
a result of park-related facility development; services, housing, and
operational facilities within the park would be limited. Many visitors
would be inconvenienced since no private vehicles could be driven
through the park.
Alternative 4--Increased Development Within the Park
Summary of Actions: Alternative 4 proposes actions to improve
visitor convenience by placing major park visitor services inside the
park wherever reasonable and by distributing visitors throughout the
developed areas of the park. No day use limitations would be
established unless the visitor experience was being significantly
degraded. The type of vehicular use allowed in some areas would be
restricted, and high use areas would be accessible only by transit
vehicles or hiking or biking (the
[[Page 46132]]
same as alternative 2); other developed areas would be accessible by
private vehicles. Overnight accommodations would be increased in all
developed areas on the North and South Rims by constructing some new
facilities and adaptively reusing existing structures. New facilities
would be placed either in or adjacent to disturbed areas. Planning
outside the park would emphasize regional information, as described for
alternative 2. Cooperative planning with outside entities would focus
on disseminating information, providing trip planning assistance, and
distributing visitor use.
Summary of Impacts: Allowing all visitors to enter the park and
developing facilities to accommodate their needs would result in
continuing resource damage. This alternative would produce more
resource impacts inside the park than any alternative and would set a
precedent for continued resource impacts in the future. The greatest
resource impacts would be caused by widening roads and developing
additional parking. Visitor convenience would be significantly
enhanced. Park operations and development would continue to expand to
meet visitor demand. After 2010 the visions and management objectives
for the developed areas might not be attainable due to the increases in
facilities and visitors. Impacts to regional resources would increase
over the long term as a result of growth inside and outside the park to
meet visitor needs. Due to ever-increasing needs for park construction,
new employee housing, and larger visitor facilities, the regional
economy would continue to increase.
Basis for Decision: The selected action was formulated to address
problems and management concerns related to the protection and
preservation of natural and cultural resources, the provision of
appropriate visitor experiences, and the fulfillment of identified
management objectives. The management objectives reflect the park
purpose, significance, and park area vision statements. They provide a
standard against which progress on the implementation of the plan can
be measured. The management zoning concept set forth in the March 1995
draft plan (and refined in the July 1995 final plan) is adopted, which
will enhance management's ability to direct future park actions in
specific areas within the context of an overall management philosophy.
The selected action also adopts the ongoing implementation plans
within the park (for example, the Resource Management Plan, Backcountry
Management Plan, Colorado River Management Plan, Fire Management Plan,
and Land Protection Plan), and provides direction, through the
management objectives, for future revisions of those plans. The
selected action provides for a monitoring program that will provide an
appropriate park management presence and an adjustable, sustainable
carrying capacity for people and vehicles in developed areas within the
park with minimal disturbance to park resources.
No protests or other comments were received on the final plan and
environmental impact statement during the 30-day no action period that
the document was available to the public.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative: Alternative 2 is the
environmentally preferred alternative. It balances the statutory
mission of the National Park Service to provide long-term resource
preservation while still allowing for appropriate levels of visitor use
and appropriate means or forms for visitor enjoyment. Within the range
of alternatives presented in the plan, alternative 2 corrects the
existing infrastructure deficiencies in the park and provides for the
projected growth in visitation through the year 2010 by adaptive use of
existing historical structures and provision of visitor transportation
services other than private automobiles. A long-term monitoring program
to determine appropriate use levels and carrying capacities within the
developed areas of the park will be established to ensure protection of
the natural and cultural resources of the park and to maintain a
quality visitor experience.
Alternative 2 also provides the best combination of long- and
short-term regional economic and community proposals that will
favorably affect the tourism industry and communities in northern
Arizona and southern Utah. An emphasis in alternative 2 is to promote
economic development in surrounding communities by not providing all
tourist related facilities inside the park.
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. These include, but are not limited to, protection of
viewsheds and wilderness values, and natural resources including the
protection of populations of threatened plant species in the developed
zone. As specific aspects of the selected action are further developed
or implemented, the National Park Service will consult with the Fish
and Wildlife Service regarding threatened or endangered species. Also
impacts to the integrity of historic properties, ethnographic
resources, and archeological sites will be avoided or minimized. A
programmatic agreement has been signed by the Arizona State Historic
Preservation Office, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and
the National Park Service which provides a framework for further
consultation and discussion when implementing the selected action.
Conclusion: The above factors and considerations warrant selecting
Alternative 2, identified as the proposed action in the draft document
(and as modified in the final general management plan and environmental
impact statement). Additional copies of the approved Record of Decision
may be obtained from the Superintendent, Grand Canyon National Park,
P.O. Box 129, Grand Canyon, AZ 86023. The officials responsible for
implementing the selected action are the Field Director, Intermountain
Field Area, National Park Service and the Superintendent, Grand Canyon
National Park.
Approved: August 21, 1995.
Stanley T. Albright,
Field Director, Pacific West Field Area.
[FR Doc. 95-21964 Filed 9-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
