[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