Record of Decision; Final Environmental Impact Statement/General Management Plan; Grand Canyon National Park; Coconino and Mohave Counties, AZ

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