[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 144 (Thursday, July 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38573-38574]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-18410]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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