General Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement Grand Canyon National Park Coconino and Mohave Counties, Arizona; Availability

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

General Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement

Grand Canyon National Park Coconino and Mohave Counties, Arizona;

Availability

Introduction: Pursuant to 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, as amended), the Department of the

Interior, National Park Service (NPS), has prepared a Final

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and General Management Plan (GMP)

that describe and analyze a proposed action and four alternatives for

the future management, use, and development of Grand Canyon National

Park.

Public Review Comments: Two hundred and forty comment letters were

received on the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) during a

60-day period ending May 11, 1995. In addition, four public meetings

were held during March 25-29, 1995 in various locations in Arizona and

Utah. Approximately 1,400 copies of the DEIS/GMP were distributed

during the public review period. The FEIS/GMP incorporates

modifications and clarifications in response to some of these public

comments. The same proposed action and same four alternatives were

evaluated in both the DEIS/GMP and the FEIS/GMP.

Proposed and Alternative Actions: The GMP proposed for adoption

provides specific management objectives and visions for the entire

park, as well as general regional-ecosystem management objectives and

visions. The proposed action, the no-action alternative, and three

other alternatives, and their environmental consequences, were

identified and analyzed as follows:

Proposed Action: The ``proposed action'' (Alternative 2) emphasizes

regional cooperation for information distribution, regional resource

preservation, and a quality visitor experience. A major shift away from

the use of private automobiles would occur. Alternate modes of

transportation would be emphasized throughout the region and within the

park, with staging areas linked to regional private transit services in

outlying communities and a public transit system within the park.

Private vehicles would be removed from the heaviest use areas in the

park, creating pedestrian-only areas. The number of private vehicles

allowed into the park at any one time would be limited in certain

areas. The adaptive use of historic structures and other structures

would be maximized. To minimize resource impacts, construction of new

park facilities would be almost entirely within disturbed areas. The

visitor experience would be defined by the unique qualities of each

individual area, and the number of visitors allowed into some areas of

the park would be determined by a carrying capacity analysis. With

respect to environmental consequences, the proposed action would

stabilize the growth of infrastructure within the park, enhance natural

and cultural resource preservation, improve significantly the visitor

experience, create better living and working conditions for park

employees, and benefit local economies.

Under the Plan proposed for adoption, the regional context of Grand

Canyon National Park would be emphasized, and proposals for resource

preservation and visitor use would take into account environmental

effects on both the park and the region. Cooperative planning efforts

outside the park would emphasize disseminating information, preserving

regional and park resources, and providing a quality visitor

experience. The NPS would work jointly with adjacent entities to

provide for many park needs outside park boundaries. The most

appropriate locations for facilities would 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.

The number of visitors in certain areas would be limited during

peak visitation periods based on desired visitor experience and

identified resource protection needs, according to the monitoring

program called for in the plan. The process for determining use limits

would be the same throughout the developed areas of the park. However,

visitor levels in specific areas could vary considerably, and use may

be limited sooner in some areas than others. South Rim day visitation

would be unlimited during the life of this plan if all the proposed

alternate transportation services are fully funded and operational in

an appropriate time frame. If this does not occur, as a contingency

measure day use reservations would be established for the South Rim

during peak visitation periods (similar to Alternative 1). North Rim

Day visitation would be limited by 2005 or 2010, depending on

effectiveness of management actions. Day use at Tuweep could be limited

at peak times. In areas where reservations became necessary, visitors

would be able to reserve permits in advance, which would be subject to

verifying at park entrances. Overnight accommodations would be expanded

on the South and North Rims primarily by adaptively reusing existing

structures.

To preserve resources and enhance visitor experience, most of the

park's developed areas would be accessible only by public transit,

hiking, or biking. Private vehicles (tour buses, cars, and RVs) would

only be allowed in specific areas. The public transit, pedestrian, and

bikeway system would be significantly expanded. The monitoring program

called for would measure resource impacts, facility use, visitor

satisfaction, and visitor attendance levels in each park developed

area. The permit system would be adjusted as needed. To further provide

a quality visitor experience, interpretive programs would focus on

significant resources of Grand Canyon, as well as regional conservation

issues.

Alternatives Considered: The four other alternatives analyzed

include: continuing existing programs and conditions (the no-action

alternative), a minimum requirements alternative (alternative 1),

reduced park development (alternative 3), and increased park

development (alternative 4). They are as follows:

Under the ``No-Action'' alternative (continuing existing programs

and conditions), planning would be focused within 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.

Cooperative planning to distribute regional information to visitors

would be limited. Visitation would continue in all park developed

areas, with nearly every South Rim visitor facility

[[Page 38574]]

continuing to be 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 would 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.

Under the ``Minimum Requirements'' alternative (Alternative 1),

planning would be focused within the park (similar to the No-Action

alternative). Issues related to planning and land management in areas

adjacent to the park would be individually handled as the need arose,

without overall area vision or an integrated regional planning effort

to give direction. Unlimited day visitation would continue in all park

developed areas until visitor congestion, resource damage, and public

safety warranted restricting peak visitation access. This would be

accomplished by implementing reservation systems based on 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 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

(some minor facilities would be added). Any required facility changes

would be accomplished in or adjacent to existing disturbed areas.

Under the ``Reduced Park Development'' alternative (Alternative 3),

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 with Alternative 2).

Wherever possible, facilities placed outside the park would be

clustered in disturbed areas and linked to existing systems. Preserving

the park's natural and cultural resources would be emphasized; many

disturbed areas would be rehabilitated. Alternate modes of

transportation would be emphasized regionally as well as in major park

high use areas (as with Alternative 2). Park resources would be

preserved 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 featured

sustainable planning and design. The NPS would expand its regional

information services (as with 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.

Under the ``Increased Park Development'' alternative (Alternative

4), planning outside the park would emphasize regional information (as

with Alternative 2). Cooperative planning with outside entities would

focus on disseminating information, providing trip planning assistance,

and distributing visitor use. Actions to improve visitor convenience

would place major visitor services inside the park wherever reasonable,

and visitors would be distributed throughout the park's developed

areas. No day use limits would be established unless the visitor

experience was 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 (as with

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 adaptively reusing existing

structures and constructing some new facilities (either in or adjacent

to disturbed areas).

SUMMARY: Based upon the analysis in the DEIS, and taking into account

all comments obtained from public meetings and received in writing from

reviewers, Alternative 2 (as described in the DEIS and modified

somewhat in the subject FEIS) is identified as the general management

plan proposed to be adopted to guide future management of Grand Canyon

National Park. The no action period on this FEIS will expire 30 days

after Notice of its availabiity is published by the Environmental

Protection Agency in the Federal Register.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A limited number of copies of the FEIS/GMP

are available upon request from: Superintendent, Grand Canyon National

Park, P.O. Box 129, Grand Canyon, AZ 86023 (520)638-7945; or the

Planning Team Leader, Grand Canyon General Management Plan, National

Park Service, TWE-Denver Service Center, P.O. Box 25287, Denver, CO

80225-0287 (303)969-2267.

As noted in the Federal Register Notice published March 13, 1995,

the official responsible for a decision on the action proposed is the

Regional Director, Western Regional Office, National Park Service.

Subsequently, the officials responsible for implementing the approved

plan are the Field Director, Intermountain Field Office, National Park

Service and the Superintendent, Grand Canyon National Park.

Dated: July 12, 1995.

Stanley T. Albright,

Regional Director, Western Region.

[FR Doc. 95-18410 Filed 7-26-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-70-P