[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 13, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56841-56848]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-28302]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Record of Decision; Final Chiricahua General Management Plan 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chiricahua National Monument; 
Arizona

    The Department of the Interior, National Park Service has prepared 
this Record of Decision on the Chiricahua National Monument General 
Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement for Chiricahua 
National Monument. This Record of Decision includes a description of 
the background of the project, a statement of the decision made, 
synopses of other alternatives considered, the basis for the decision, 
findings on impairment of park resources and values, a description of 
the environmentally preferable alternative, a listing of measures to 
minimize environmental harm, and an overview of public and agency 
involvement in the decision-making process.

Background of the Project

    The General Management Plan (GMP) for Chiricahua National Monument 
will be the first comprehensive development planning for. The purpose 
of the GMP is to decide what resource conditions and visitor 
experiences should ultimately be achieved and maintained throughout the 
park. The process started in early May 1998 and involved joint scoping 
for GMPs for both Chiricahua NM and Fort Bowie NHS. A newsletter 
invited the public to attend meetings to discuss both plans. Notices of 
the public meetings were also sent to nearby newspapers. Four meetings 
were held the week of May 18th in the towns of Portal, Willcox, and 
Bowie, and at a

[[Page 56842]]

school just outside of Chiricahua NM. A total of 19 people attended the 
meetings. The GMP process was described at each meeting, as were the 
two parks. There was general appreciation expressed for the parks, and 
recommendations were made not to change them. All suggestions were 
discussed and notes were taken. Another 24 mailed responses were 
received from newspaper readers. Letters were also sent to six Apache 
tribes and one nation in Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma, and to two 
interested individual American Indians. No responses were received.
    Notice of Intent to publish an Environmental Impact Statement was 
published in the Federal Register in June of 1999. A 30-day public 
comment period followed ending on July 15, 1999. A website (http://www.nps.gov/planning/chir) was established to facilitate making 
information about the planning process available to the public. A total 
of 5 responses were received requesting information on the planning 
process. Groups included one organization interested in land issues, 
one interested in handicapped accessibility, and two unaffiliated 
individuals.
    The purpose of the Chiricahua General Management Plan is to present 
a comprehensive management plan and guide the management of the 
Chiricahua National Monument for the next 12 to 15 years. Three 
alternatives were considered'a no-action and two action alternatives. 
The No Action Alternative represents the status quo for Chiricahua 
National Monument. The two action alternatives, Alternatives A (the NPS 
Proposal) and Alternative B, presented in the Final Chiricahua General 
Management Plan/FEIS are based on a thorough consideration of the best-
available information on park resources and the visitor experience. 
Each of the two action alternatives in the Final Chiricahua General 
Management Plan/FEIS presents a distinct vision for preserving the 
resources that contribute to Chiricahua National Monument's cultural 
and natural values while making the resources available to people for 
their enjoyment, education, and recreation.

Decision (Selected Action)

    The National Park Service will implement Alternative A as described 
in the Chiricahua National Monument General Management Plan and Final 
Environmental Impact Statement issued in March 2001. The selected 
alternative provides an overall combination of actions to restore 
natural processes, preserve cultural resource values, reduce harmful 
environmental impacts and continue to provide opportunities for high 
quality visitor experiences based on resource values. With the 
exceptions described below, the current level of development and 
interpretation and the pattern of visitor use would be maintained. In 
summary, the following would be implement. This is also documented in 
more detail in the plan.
    Park Road--The historic significance and character of the road are 
its greatest values and would be protected under the proposal. With 
possible minor exceptions for safety, the existing width and alignment 
of the road would be permanently retained. Any road work (drainage, 
replacement of base, etc.) would be done in such a way as to preserve 
the road's special character. Along the road margins, vegetation and 
trees would be cleared and/or removed in order to restore views of park 
and distant features from the road. In order to protect the roadside 
environment, pullouts, trailheads, and parking areas along the road 
would not be enlarged.
    Bonita Picnic Area--In addition to a resting and sitting area, this 
place, which is the first encountered by the entering visitor, serves 
as the beginning of a foot trail that goes almost to the visitor 
center. The section from the picnic area to the Stafford Cabin would be 
made accessible to visitors with mobility impairments.
    Faraway Ranch--After the cultural landscape report of the ranch 
grounds has been completed, NPS would select appropriate landscape 
restoration treatment for the main part of the ranch, including the 
appropriate vegetation and selected fences, corrals, and other 
structures. The Faraway historic vernacular landscape and CCC historic 
designed landscape areas would continue to be managed as historic 
landscape resources, and modifications for visitor safety and 
accessibility would be made so as to not reduce the integrity of these 
areas. The integrity of all landscape areas and features (historic 
vegetation, structures such as the Faraway pool, etc.) would be 
maintained, as would the integrity of the CCC area's design principles 
and use of materials. Overhead power and telephone lines would be 
removed and installed underground from the park entrance through the 
historic district and on to the visitor center, housing, and 
campground.
    All ranch buildings open to the public and the trail along Bonita 
Creek from the picnic area to Stafford Cabin would be made accessible 
for visitors with mobility impairments.
    Most administrative functions that now occupy historic Faraway 
Ranch structures, including collections, would move to the proposed 
headquarters and administrative facility, and most of the vacated space 
would be available for visitor use and interpretation. The upper floor 
of the house would remain available to the interpreters as a work and 
storage space, and the garage would continue to be used as a 
maintenance facility. When administrative functions are removed from 
the guest house, the entire structure would be used as an employee 
residence in order to provide an on-site employee presence.
    Under the proposal, the ranch house would be provided with climate 
control to protect the historic furnishings and with a fire suppression 
system to protect the house and its contents.
    The current 10,000-gallon water tank is insufficient for fire 
control on the ranch. The ranch would be connected to the main visitor 
center/housing area water system. A standpipe would be installed near 
the parking lot for wildfire suppression.
    When the water system is extended to the ranch parking area, 
consideration would be given to providing hollow conduits for the 
future installation of electric service, if needed.
    The current two-way trail from the ranch parking area to the ranch 
house and Stafford Cabin would be enlarged to a loop trail, starting 
and ending at the parking area and representing the historic 
circulation more accurately.
    Headquarters and Visitor Orientation Facility--Under the proposal, 
a new combined headquarters/visitor orientation facility would be built 
outside the park. One park goal is for no further development to take 
place within the park. For the visitors to be properly oriented to the 
park's attractions, they should reach the headquarters/visitor 
orientation facility before entering the park, but not so far away from 
the boundary that the connection to the park is lost. The headquarters/
visitor orientation facility should also be located to intercept 
travelers coming from the other side of the Chiricahua Mountains on 
Pinery Canyon Road. Therefore, the recommended location is on route 181 
as close to the park entrance as possible.
    The new facility would house a complete visitor orientation 
function as well as the park administrative offices (including those 
now in the Faraway Ranch), sales, artifact collection space, library, 
archives, and herbarium. There would be parking, including adequate 
space for parking for an eventual shuttle terminus, should one be 
necessary, and an RV dump station. The structure would have 
approximately 9,000 square feet of space for visitor use, 4,000 square

[[Page 56843]]

feet of office and administrative space, and 2,000 square feet for 
maintenance shops, equipment, and storage, for an approximate total of 
15,000 square feet of indoor space. There would be parking for 
approximately 200 visitors' vehicles and 4,000 square feet of outdoor 
maintenance storage. The facility could include joint support function 
with the USFS. Also, the NPS would invite USFS to use the facility to 
introduce visitors to the Coronado National Forest and its recreational 
opportunities.
    As an interim step, a short-term solution to the shortage of 
administrative space might be to lease or rent space in Willcox. 
Although not an ideal solution (it was rejected as a permanent 
solution), this would serve temporarily to allow removing the offices 
from their scattered locations in the park, consolidating most of them 
in one location, and making the Faraway Ranch space available for 
visitor use and interpretation.
    Visitor Transportation System--The following discussion about a 
transportation system involves assumptions not yet finalized. A 
transportation study under contract with Parsons Brinckerhoff will 
provide information for implementation. Final actions are dependent on 
the outcome of the study.
    Two solutions to alleviate the parking problems would be 
implemented. In the short term, during the spring peak visitation 
season, a limited hiker shuttle would be implemented to take hikers to 
either Massai Point or Echo Canyon. At approximately 400 average daily 
visitors, the reconfigured Echo Canyon parking lot would reach capacity 
during the peak visitation periods. The limited hiker shuttle would be 
designed to keep long-term parking confined to the base of the 
monument, allowing more visitors to use the limited parking spaces at 
Massai Point and Echo Canyon. Hikers typically park at Massai Point or 
Echo Canyon for between three and five hours, and if the hiker were to 
take the shuttle instead, approximately four to eight additional 
sightseers would be able to park legally. Service would be similar to 
the existing hikers' shuttle, except for an established schedule. 
Service would run every two hours or other times as needed, allowing 
enough time for a ranger or a driver to operate the shuttle and pursue 
other activities. The shuttle system would need to have a capacity of 
approximately 50 people per day. This would eliminate 22 cars being 
parked long term at Massai Point and Echo Canyon. The cost of the 
transportation service could be paid for by a small surcharge to all 
visitors; volunteer enticements to hikers could be provided by waiving 
the entrance fee for those hikers who leave their cars at the base of 
the monument. Bicycle racks would be fitted onto the shuttle vehicles 
so that bicyclists could also be transported. To solve congestion 
problems for the long term, the hiker shuttle system would be doubled 
in size and capacity. The system would be based outside park 
boundaries, ideally near the new headquarters/visitor orientation 
facility. The enhanced hiker shuttle system would transport between 50 
and 100 people per day, reducing parking demand at Massai Point and 
Echo Canyon by up to 44 long-term parked cars. This action would free 
up spaces and allow the Massai Point parking lot to operate just below 
maximum capacity during peak visitation hours. Service would become 
hourly, meaning that one full-time person would be responsible for 
driving a shuttle during its hours of operation. The enhanced hiker 
shuttle system would need significant additional capacity, new types of 
transit vehicles, and a more stable base of operations outside the 
park. This system could be operated by a monument concessioner.
    Housing/Maintenance Area--All maintenance functions and fuel 
supplies would be removed to the new headquarters/visitor orientation 
facility complex, and the vacated space would be used for fire 
equipment and emergency medical supplies and as a rescue cache and 
warehouse.
    Because of the monument's distance from the nearest town (37 miles 
to Willcox), it is necessary to have certain park employees live in the 
park to provide resource protection, emergency repairs, and law 
enforcement. All but two of the housing units are in the residential 
area just above the visitor center. These include permanent and 
seasonal housing. Another unit occupies one-half of the ``guest house'' 
on the Faraway Ranch (the other half is used for office space). The 
``superintendent's house,'' which was acquired as part of an inholding 
property, is near Bonita Creek a short distance downstream from the 
visitor center.
    All of the units are in good condition, and would be retained in 
their present uses. Because of the potential of flooding, when the 
``superintendent's house'' has served its useful life, or is seriously 
damaged, it would be removed and the site returned to a natural 
condition.
    There is at present no need for additional housing. As new housing 
authorities become available to the NPS, the need for in-park housing 
and the potential for providing housing outside would be reconsidered.
    Boneyard--The boneyard and firearms training range impinges on the 
wilderness area. These inappropriate uses would be ended, and the areas 
would be restored to a natural appearance.
    Campground--The flash flood risk of Bonita Creek affects campground 
users. The park would continue to operate the Bonita Creek campground 
in a safe and prudent manner by selective closures and flood threat 
awareness training for staff and visitors to Chiricahua. The selective 
closures of the campground would derive from use of the campground 
operation plan and be based upon seasonal and predicted weather 
conditions at the monument. Closures would occur on a day-by-day basis 
according to immediate observations by monument staff and weather 
forecasts of particular intensity and would be modified by any pre-
saturation of the watershed and the season of the year. The campground 
operation plan would be developed by NPS as committed to in the final 
floodplain management statement of findings accompanying this GMP (see 
appendix 3 of the FEIS).
    Because of the unsatisfied demand for camping (the campground is 
often full), NPS would cooperate with USFS, landowners, and businesses 
to provide additional camping opportunities outside the park. No NPS 
camping reservation system is anticipated because the park would work 
with neighbors to provide additional camping.
    The campground septic system is often used to its capacity and 
would be replaced under the proposal.
    There would be no recreation vehicle hookups or dump station added 
to the campground. The park would consider installing a dump station at 
the proposed headquarters/visitor orientation facility. For the interim 
a sign would be erected just inside the park entrance telling departing 
campers to empty their holding tanks only at approved and legal dump 
stations, and directing them to the nearest ones.
    Trails--Staff of the monument and national forest would jointly 
examine opportunities for connecting trails in order to provide hikers 
a better and more extensive choice of routes. This would also further 
disperse hikers in the backcountry. The dirt road to the King of Lead 
Mine would be converted to a trail if and when the property is added to 
the monument.
    King of Lead Mine--The King of Lead Mine would be acquired, and the 
park boundary extended to include it. In the meantime, a sign would be 
installed at the mine property boundary warning

[[Page 56844]]

hikers of the open mine, abandoned equipment, and so on. When the mine 
is acquired, it will be evaluated for historic significance. To protect 
visitors, the haul road would be closed to vehicular use, returned to a 
natural condition (except for a foot trail), and it would be 
administratively added to the surrounding wilderness area.
    Sugarloaf--The parking area would be configured to add day-use 
amenities such as more picnic tables, group ramadas, and benches. These 
facilities would be provided in an attempt to shift some visitor use 
from the Echo Canyon and Massai Point parking areas. Limited vista 
clearing would also occur. The Sugarloaf road, overlook, trail, and 
fire tower would remain unchanged.
    Echo Canyon Parking and Trailhead--Under the proposal, the parking 
lot would be reconfigured to alleviate peak parking problems. Limited 
vista clearing would also occur.
    Massai Point--Under existing plans, the capacity of the summit 
parking area would be increased, but not its area, and vehicular flow 
would be improved. Trailheads would be made safer, and a new rest room 
would be installed. Vegetation around the parking area would be thinned 
and pruned to restore the views. Directional and informative signs 
would be installed. All improvements would be done in such a way as to 
be compatible with the significant CCC landscape elements (to be 
determined by the cultural landscape inventory).
    The small exhibit building, which occupies one of the best 
viewpoints in the monument, would continue to be used as an exhibit and 
interpretation facility. The exhibits would be modernized and would 
conform to an interpretive plan that is to be written for the summit 
area. A small outdoor sitting area and interpretive space would be 
built close to the building, and the summit would be made handicapped 
accessible from the parking area.
    Wilderness--Except for the previously mentioned King of Lead haul 
road, the rehabilitation of the existing boneyard and firearms training 
range, and very minor trail realignments, no changes would be made to 
the wilderness area. A theme of the park interpretation program would 
be to inform people about what wilderness is, what its values are, and 
what is considered appropriate use for wilderness.
    Potential Boundary Changes--The proposed headquarters/visitor 
orientation facility would be located at a place along route 181 yet to 
be selected. If a location contiguous with the park is selected, the 
park boundary could be extended to enclose it. If it is not contiguous, 
or very nearly so, the land could be leased or purchased by GSA but not 
included within the park boundary.
    Fire Program--The fire program is growing, with more acreage being 
treated by prescribed burning in 1998 than ever in the past. The park 
has established a fire management officer position that will be filled 
in 1999, and it has begun a joint planning process with USFS for mutual 
burning and suppression activities on each other's lands. Implementing 
the proposed GMP would improve staff's ability to operate the program 
mainly by reducing development, structures, operations, and traffic 
inside the boundaries. A new headquarters/visitor orientation facility 
located outside the park would put much of the staff, their vehicles, 
park files and exhibits, maintenance equipment, and so on in a safer 
place, for wildland fire considerations. The new facility would be 
built in an area with grassy fuels, which is in sharp contrast to the 
dense shrub and tree cover now surrounding the visitor center, 
administrative site, and housing.
    The dead-end road is a concern because the park has very few fire 
safety zones. Clearing roadsides and improving the park road would 
reduce travel time for fire fighters and would aid in using fire-
fighting equipment, as well as moving visitors and employees away from 
fire danger. Parking lots can be used as fire safety zones if 
absolutely necessary, so work to clear brush and improve traffic flow 
is critical. The campground, with its location and access on a narrow 
one-way, dead end road, is another fire danger concern. Because the 
campground would not be enlarged, staff could work with the current 
setup and continue to improve the situation by creating fire safety 
zones, reducing fuels, and clearing roadsides.
    Upgrading the water system would improve fire suppression 
capabilities for structures, especially historic buildings. Improving 
accessibility would also help in evacuating visitors from buildings, if 
necessary.
    An ongoing vegetation investigation is showing historically less 
dense vegetation with more varied composition and structure. Fire would 
be used to restore historic vegetation conditions. Cultural landscape 
studies could include prescribed fire as a tool. Because most cultural 
landscapes in the park would include historic structures, fuel 
treatment would reduce hazards and enhance suppression efforts.
    The joint planning with USFS would support using fire in the 
wilderness. Additionally, focusing park interpretation on wilderness, 
including natural processes such as fire and flooding, would lead to 
better public understanding and acceptance.
    Commercial Services--Commercial horseback, hiking, and tour bus 
services originating outside the park would continue. The park would 
encourage others, including private business and USFS, to provide 
recreation vehicle and tent campground and camping supply stores 
outside the park.
    Other activities could be added if they enhance the visitor 
experience, are appropriate for the park, and are consistent with 
resource protection prescriptions. Some of these activities might 
include bicycle tours and shuttle services to alleviate crowding and 
prevent traffic jams.
    Activities would be evaluated primarily on the need for protection 
of resources, goals established for the visitor experience, and the 
need to reduce crowding and visitor conflicts. When problems are 
identified, the park would conduct feasibility studies to determine if 
proposed activities are necessary and practical and then determine the 
best way to provide the services.
    Water System--The three separate water systems that serve the 
visitor center, employee housing, and campground do not meet public 
health standards. They would be replaced or modified as needed.
    Operational Costs--Operational costs total $233,500 and are broken 
down in Table 1 in the FEIS.
    Development Costs--Development costs total $5,881,000 and are 
broken down in Table 2 in the FEIS.

Other Alternatives

Alternative B

    Alternative B provides a traditional park experience with increased 
personal services and a small number of facility enhancements. With the 
exceptions described below, the current level of development and 
interpretation and the pattern of visitor use is appropriate for 
Chiricahua and would be maintained. The application of management 
prescriptions would be exactly the same as under the proposal.
    Park Road--Under this alternative, the historic significance and 
character of the road would be protected, but alignment could be 
selectively altered. Most of the road's special character would be 
maintained, but more alterations of the vegetation would be likely. 
Some minor enlargements and realignments could occur.
    Bonita Picnic Area--This area would be treated the same as it would 
be under the Proposal.

[[Page 56845]]

    Faraway Ranch--Treatments would be the same as under the proposal 
except that the focus of efforts would be centered on the historic 
structures. There would be little to no modification of the landscape.
    Overhead power and telephone lines would be removed and installed 
underground in the immediate vicinity of the structures.
    The trail along Bonita Creek, from the picnic area to Stafford 
Cabin, would be accessible for visitors with mobility impairments.
    There would be limited access to selected buildings by the public. 
Some administrative functions would continue in the area. Climate 
control would be used to protect the historic furnishings. A fire 
suppression system would be used to protect the house and contents.
    The water system would connect to the main visitor center/housing 
area. A standpipe would be installed near the parking lot for wildfire 
suppression, and the water system would extend to the ranch parking 
area. The two-way trail would be enlarged into a loop trail.
    Headquarters and Visitor Orientation Facility--Under this 
alternative, administrative facilities would only be built outside the 
park and no new visitor orientation facility would be constructed. 
There would be no further development in the park and no additional 
services for RVs.
    Short-term lease or rent space for administrative services would be 
explored in Willcox, and a joint support function would be considered 
with the U.S. Forest Service.
    Visitor Transportation System--Options under this alternative are 
the same as for the proposal.
    Housing/Maintenance Area--Under this alternative there would be no 
changes in current operation except that
    (1) all housing units would be retained in present use;
    (2) the superintendent's house eventually would be removed and the 
site returned to a natural condition; and,
    (3) the need for in-park housing and potential for providing 
housing outside the park would both be considered.
    Boneyard--The boneyard and firearms training range impinges on the 
wilderness area. These inappropriate uses would be ended, and the areas 
would be restored to a natural appearance.
    Campground--Treatment for this area would be the same as described 
under the proposal.
    Trails--Treatment of trails would be the same as described for the 
proposal.
    King of Lead Mine--Treatment of the mine would be the same as it 
would be under the proposal.
    Sugarloaf--Under this alternative there would be no change.
    Echo Canyon Parking and Trailhead--Under this alternative there 
would be no change.
    Massai Point--Treatment of the area would be the same as described 
under the proposal.
    Wilderness--Treatment of wilderness would be the same as described 
for the proposal.
    Potential Boundary Changes--Under this alternative there would be 
no changes to park boundaries.
    Fire Program--The fire program would be the same as described under 
the proposal, except that no improvements through reductions of 
development would take place. Facilities outside the park would be 
confined to administrative functions with little or no support to the 
fire program.
    Commercial Services--Commercial services would be the same as for 
the proposal.
    Water System--Water systems would be upgraded to meet public health 
standards.
    Operational Costs--Operational costs total $233,500 and are broken 
down in Table 1 of the FEIS.
    Development Costs--Development costs total $5,881,000 and are 
broken down in Table 2 of the FEIS.

No-Action Alternative

    All environmental documents are required to analyze at least two 
alternatives'a proposal and a no-action alternative. Under the no-
action alternative, existing conditions as described below would 
continue at Chiricahua NM.
    Park Road--With possible minor exceptions for safety, the existing 
width and alignment of the road would be permanently retained. 
Pullouts, trailheads, and parking areas along the road would not be 
enlarged.
    Bonita Picnic Area--Existing development would be retained.
    Faraway Ranch--The only landscape treatment would be continued 
maintenance and fire protection. The fences, corrals, and outbuildings 
would not be restored to their historic appearance, and buildings would 
not be made accessible. In the absence of a new headquarters/visitor 
orientation facility, administrative functions would remain in the 
ranch buildings. Lacking the proposed connection of the ranch to the 
main park water system, the ranch house and its contents would remain 
at risk of fire. The collections in the house would remain unprotected 
by a climate control system. Visitors would continue to approach and 
leave the main buildings by the existing two-way trail.
    Visitor Center--In the absence of a new headquarters/visitor 
orientation facility, the existing conditions of crowded working 
conditions, inadequate parking, and inadequate interpretive space would 
continue.
    Housing/Maintenance Area--Maintenance activities would remain in 
the present location, so that space would not be available for other 
uses. The housing area would be the same as described under the 
proposal.
    Boneyard--This inconsistent use of the wilderness area would 
remain.
    Campground--The existing campground would be retained, and the 
septic system would not be replaced.
    Trails--Existing trails would be retained in the no-action 
alternative.
    King of Lead Mine--No further steps would be taken with the state 
and the mine owner to mitigate the mine pollution and to acquire the 
property. The haul road would not be added to the surrounding 
wilderness. A warning sign would be erected.
    Sugarloaf--The Sugarloaf road, overlook area, trail, and fire tower 
would remain unchanged.
    Echo Canyon Parking and Trailhead--The overlook, parking, and 
trailhead area would remain unchanged.
    Massai Point--Under existing plans, the capacity (but not the area) 
of the summit parking area would be increased and vehicular flow would 
be improved. Trailheads would be made safer, and a new rest room would 
be installed. Vegetation around the parking area would be thinned and 
pruned to restore the views. Directional and informative signs would be 
installed.
    The small exhibit building, which occupies one of the best 
viewpoints in the monument, would continue to be used as an exhibit and 
interpretation facility. The exhibits would be modernized to conform to 
an interpretive plan to be written for the summit area. A small outdoor 
sitting area and interpretive space would be built close to the 
building, and the summit would be made handicapped accessible from the 
parking area.
    Wilderness Area--There would be no changes in the wilderness area.
    Potential Boundary Changes--There would be no changes in the park's 
boundary.
    Fire Program--Some of the fire program would be the same in this 
alternative as with the proposal. The fire management officer position 
would be filled, and the park would continue joint planning with USFS. 
Acreage

[[Page 56846]]

burned would increase to reduce fuels and to restore fire as an 
ecosystem process.
    The difference is that fire hazards and safety risks would be 
higher for people and structures despite fire planning for suppression. 
Facilities, housing, campgrounds, traffic flows, and so on would remain 
in the current state, which hinders fire management operations. Roads 
and parking lots would not be cleared or improved, which increases the 
risk of entrapment and delays response time for fire fighters and 
equipment. Inadequate water systems do not provide for suppression 
capabilities for historic structures or other facilities. Cultural 
landscape information would not be available for restoring historic 
scenes. Lack of interpretation focus on wilderness would affect public 
understanding and appreciation of natural forces, such as fire and 
flooding, as well as of land-use ethics.
    Commercial Services--Commercial horseback, hiking, and tour bus 
services originating outside the park would continue.
    Water System--The three separate water systems that serve the 
visitor center, employee housing, and campground do not meet public 
health standards. They would be replaced or modified as needed.
    Operational Costs--Costs are already reflected in the park's annual 
operating budget.
    Development Costs--There are no development costs associated with 
this alternative.

Basis for Decision

    After careful consideration of public comments received throughout 
the planning process, including comments on the Chiricahua General 
Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Alternative A has 
been selected for this Record of Decision. This alternative best 
accomplishes the legislated purposes of Chiricahua National Monument 
and the statutory mission of the National Park Service to provide long-
term protection of Chiricahua National Monument's resources and values 
while allowing for visitor use and visitor enjoyment. The selected 
action also best accomplishes the stated purposes of the Chiricahua 
General Management Plan (as described on page 1-20 Purpose and Need, of 
the Final Chiricahua General Management Plan/Supplemental Environmental 
Impact Statement). Consequently, the selected action conserves values 
embodied in the Organic Act to:
     Accomplish the mission of the National Park Service,
     Achieve the purposes and criteria of the Chiricahua 
General Management Plan, and
     Prevents impairment of park resources in a manner that 
meets legal and policy requirements.

Protect and Enhance Natural and Cultural Resources

    Through its combination of restoration of areas to natural 
conditions, resource protection, and the location or relocation of 
facilities, Alternative A exceeds the other alternatives in its 
protection and enhancement of natural resources and removal of 
facilities from highly valued resource areas. Alternative B provides 
some of the same protection, but does not include support for some 
important safety and visitor park programs.
    Alternative A protects highly valued natural and cultural resources 
through the restoration Arizona vegetation communities and a historical 
road. Habitat connectivity encourages biodiversity and promotes a more 
stable biological system.
    Alternative A reduces the total amount of development in the park, 
by moving all new infrastructure outside the park. Facilities no longer 
needed or that adversely impact resources will be removed from highly 
valued areas and new facilities will be located largely outside these 
areas. They will be placed in such a way as to avoid or minimize 
disruption of natural processes.
    Alternative A provides the best alternative for mitigating the 
campground flash flood risk of Bonita Creek to campground users. The 
park would continue to operate the Bonita Creek campground in a safe 
and prudent manner by selective closures and flood threat awareness 
training for staff and visitors to Chiricahua. The selective closures 
of the campground would derive from use of the campground operation 
plan and be based upon seasonal and predicted weather conditions at the 
monument. Closures would occur on a day-by-day basis according to 
immediate observations by monument staff and weather forecasts of 
particular intensity and would be modified by any presaturation of the 
watershed and the season of the year. The campground operation plan 
would be developed by NPS as committed to in the final floodplain 
management statement of findings accompanying this GMP (see appendix 
3).
    Alternative A will better preserve the historic integrity of the 
area than the other action alternatives by retaining character-defining 
features at Faraway Ranch. In summary, Alternative A includes actions 
that are major and beneficial to the natural resources, and generally 
more beneficial to cultural resources than other alternatives.

Enhance Visitor Experience

    The criteria to enhance the visitors' experience by fostering a 
diversity of opportunities and by encouraging a high degree of resource 
stewardship through interpretation, orientation, and education, will be 
best achieved by implementing Alternative A.
    Day-visitor parking in Alternative A provides for day-visitor 
parking at Massai Point and increased accessibility access along the 
Park Road and at Faraway Ranch. terms of visitor access.
    Each of the action alternatives provides increased opportunities 
for experiencing Chiricahua on foot by providing additional trails.

Provide Effective Operations

    The management of park-wide operations would move to a new 
headquarters/visitor orientation facility/administrative area just 
outside park. Other functions not essential for Chiricahua operations 
will also be relocated under each of the action alternatives.

Provide Appropriate Land Uses

    The criterion articulated in the Purpose and Need of the Final 
Chiricahua General Management Plan/FEIS to site new facilities so that, 
in aggregate, they help achieve a benefit for park resources, will be 
met under Alternative A. Of the facilities to be removed in Chiricahua, 
most are to be removed from highly valued resource areas. If the 
function is to be retained in Chiricahua, in most cases it will be 
relocated outside of highly valued resource areas.

Findings on Impairment of Park Resources and Values

    The National Park Service has determined that implementation of 
Alternative A of the Chiricahua General Management Plan will not 
constitute an impairment to Chiricahua National Monument's resources 
and values. This conclusion is based on a thorough analysis of the 
environmental impacts described in the Final Chiricahua General 
Management Plan/FEIS, the public comments received, relevant scientific 
studies, and the professional judgment of the decision-maker guided by 
the direction Management Policies 2001. While the plan has some 
negative impacts, in all cases these adverse impacts are the result of 
actions taken to preserve and restore other park resources and values. 
Overall, the plan results in benefits to park resources and

[[Page 56847]]

values, opportunities for their enjoyment, and it does not result in 
their impairment.
    In determining whether impairment may occur, park managers consider 
the duration, severity, and magnitude of the impact; the resources and 
values affected; and direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the 
action. According to National Park Service Policy, ``An impact would be 
more likely to constitute an impairment to the extent that it affects a 
resource or value whose conservation is: (a) Necessary to fulfill 
specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or 
proclamation of the park; (b) Key to the natural or cultural integrity 
of the park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the park; or (c) 
Identified as a goal in the park's general management plan or other 
relevant National Park Service planning documents.''
    This policy does not prohibit impacts to park resources and values. 
The National Park Service has the discretion to allow impacts to park 
resources and values when necessary and appropriate to fulfill the 
purposes of a park, so long as the impacts do not constitute 
impairment. Moreover, an impact is less likely to constitute impairment 
if it is an unavoidable result of an action necessary to preserve or 
restore the integrity of park resources or values.
    Human activity and past development have resulted in the ongoing 
disruption of natural systems and processes in Chiricahua for 
generations. The No Action Alternative would result in future unplanned 
and uncoordinated actions that are merely reactive to immediate 
concerns. Furthermore, these actions would likely be responsive to 
immediate, short-term, adverse impacts that demand attention, but may 
result in long-term impairment to park values and resources.
    The actions comprising Alternative A will achieve the goals of the 
Chiricahua General Management Plan (which include protecting and 
enhancing the natural and cultural resources of Chiricahua and 
providing opportunities for high-quality, resource-based visitor 
experiences) in a comprehensive, integrated manner that takes into 
account the interplay between resource protection and visitor use. 
Actions implemented under Alternative B that will cause overall 
negligible adverse impacts, minor adverse impacts, short term impacts, 
and beneficial impacts to park resources and values, as described in 
the Final Chiricahua General Management Plan/FEIS will not constitute 
impairment. This is because these impacts have limited severity and/or 
duration and will not result in appreciable irreversible commitments of 
resources. Beneficial effects identified in the Final FEIS include 
effects related to restoring and protecting park resources and values.
    In conclusion, the National Park Service has determined that the 
implementation of Alternative A will not result in impairment of 
resources and values in Chiricahua National Monument.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

    Environmentally preferable is defined as ``the alternative that 
will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in the 
National Environmental Policy Act's section 101. NEPA section 101 
states that * * * it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal 
Government to * * * (1) Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation 
as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations; (2) assure 
for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and 
culturally pleasing surroundings; (3) attain the widest range of 
beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health 
or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences; (4) 
preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our 
national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment 
which supports diversity, and variety of individual choice; (5) achieve 
a balance between population and resource use which will permit high 
standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and (6) 
enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum 
attainable recycling of depletable resources.'' The environmentally 
preferable alternative for the Chiricahua General Management Plan is 
based on these national environmental policy goals.

Alternative A

    This alternative will realize each of the provisions of the 
national environmental policy goals stated in NEPA section 101. 
Alternative A will protect and enhance values Chiricahua NM. These 
actions will further goals 1, 3, and 4 of NEPA section 101.

Alternative B

    This alternative would be nearly as effective as Alternative A in 
realizing the provisions of the national environmental policy goals in 
section 101 of NEPA. Overall, the benefit and effect of the 
alternative's environmental restoration and visitor services and 
facility development activities would be similar to those described 
under Alternative A.

No Action

    This alternative represents the current management direction with 
no dramatic or comprehensive changes taking place in the management of 
Chiricahua NM. Although the No Action alternative would include the 
least change to cultural resources, it would not result in the same 
level of environmental protection and restoration for natural 
resources, including floodplains as would occur under the various 
action alternatives. In having lesser protection and restoration of 
natural resources, including highly valued resources, the No Action 
alternative would not fully achieve provisions 1, 3, 4, and 5 of 
section 101 of NEPA. Although existing patterns of visitor use would 
continue, traffic congestion and existing impacts upon visitor 
experience in Chiricahua NM would not be remedied. Compared to the 
action alternatives, the No Action alternative would be least effective 
in attaining goal 3 of NEPA, as described in section 101, in that it 
would have the narrowest range of beneficial uses that would occur 
without degradation of natural and cultural resources in Chiricahua NM. 
Because of existing impacts that are not remedied and that relate to 
provisions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of section 101 (as discussed above), these 
provisions would not be realized by the No Action Alternative.

Summary

    The National Park Service has determined that the environmentally 
preferable alternative is Alternative A. While some specific actions 
under other alternatives may achieve similar or in some cases greater 
levels of protection for certain cultural resources, natural resources, 
and/or visitor experience than under Alternative A, in aggregate, this 
alternative best achieves the six conditions prescribed under section 
101 of NEPA. While many of the actions in other alternatives may be 
similar to Alternative A in their effect and consequence, Alternative A 
(1) provides a high level of protection of natural and cultural 
resources while concurrently attaining the widest range of neutral and 
beneficial uses of the environment without degradation; (2) maintains 
an environment that supports diversity and variety of individual 
choice; and (3) integrates resource protection with opportunities for 
an appropriate range of visitor uses.

Measures To Minimize Environmental Harm

    The National Park Service has investigated all practical means to 
avoid or minimize environmental impacts that

[[Page 56848]]

could result from implementation of the selected action. The measures 
have been incorporated into Alternative A, and are presented in detail 
in the Final Chiricahua General Management Plan/Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Statement.
    A consistent set of mitigation measures would be applied to actions 
that result from this plan. Monitoring and enforcement programs will 
oversee the implementation of mitigation measures. These programs will 
assure compliance monitoring; biological and cultural resource 
protection; traffic management, noise, and dust abatement; noxious weed 
control; pollution prevention measures; visitor safety and education; 
revegetation; architectural character; and other mitigation measures.
    Mitigation measures will also be applied to future actions that are 
guided by this plan. In addition, the National Park Service will 
prepare appropriate compliance reviews (i.e., National Environmental 
Policy Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and other relevant 
legislation) for these future actions.

Public and Interagency Involvement

    On June 14, 1999, the National Park Service published in the 
Federal Register (Vol 64 Number 58 pg 16487-88) a notice of intent to 
prepare an environmental impact statement for the Chiricahua General 
Management Plan. The Final Chiricahua General Management Plan/FEIS has 
been developed pursuant to sections 102(2)'' of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (Public Law 91-190) and the Council on 
Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1508.22). Through scoping, a 
formal public comment process, public meetings and outreach, and 
meetings with government entities on the Draft Chiricahua General 
Management Plan/DEIS, the National Park Service conducted this planning 
process in consultation with affected federal agencies, state and local 
governments, tribal groups, and interested organizations and 
individuals.

Scoping

    Scoping typically occurs at the beginning of a planning process. 
However, in the case of the Draft Chiricahua General Management Plan/
FEIS, scoping began in 1992. Scoping sessions by the park staff, a 
public open house, a press release, and a letter to 392 people on the 
mailing list for both Chiricahua NM and Fort Bowie National Historic 
Site (NHS) raised a series of issues. After a national reorganization 
in the National Park Service, the general management planning process 
was restarted in 1996 with a different planning team. The first step in 
the second process was a review of the work previously done and the 
incorporation of the 1992 public comments.
    In early May 1998, a newsletter was mailed to all interested 
parties and those on the park mailing list informing them of GMP 
projects for both Chiricahua NM and Fort Bowie NHS. The newsletter 
invited the public to attend meetings to discuss both plans. Notices of 
the public meetings were also sent to nearby newspapers. Four meetings 
were held the week of May 18th in the towns of Portal, Willcox, and 
Bowie, and at a school just outside of Chiricahua NM. A total of 19 
people attended the meetings. The GMP process for each park was 
described at each meeting, as were the two parks. There was general 
appreciation expressed for the parks, and recommendations were made not 
to change them.
    All suggestions were discussed and notes were taken. Another 24 
mailed responses were received from newspaper readers. Letters were 
also sent to six Apache tribes and one nation in Arizona, New Mexico, 
and Oklahoma, and to two interested individual American Indians. No 
responses were received.
    A Notice of Intent to publish an Environmental Impact Statement was 
published in the Federal Register in June of 1999. A 30-day public 
comment period followed ending on July 15, 1999. A Web site (http://www.nps.gov/planning/chir) was established to facilitate making 
information about the planning process available to the public. A total 
of 5 responses were received requesting information on the planning 
process. Groups included one organization interested in land issues, 
one interested in handicapped accessibility, and two unaffiliated 
individuals.
    The DEIS NOA announced the availability of the Draft Chiricahua 
General Management Plan/DEIS and solicited comments from the public 
through January 2000. The final incorporation of public comment is part 
of the Final Chiricahua General Management Plan/FEIS and documented in 
Appendix 4 , March 2001, made available for public review per the 
Notice of Availability published in the Federal Register, March 26, 
2001 (Vol 66 Number 58 pg 16487-88).

Conclusion

    Alternative A provides the most comprehensive and effective method 
among the alternatives considered for meeting the National Park 
Service's purposes, goals, and criteria for managing Chiricahua 
National Monument and for meeting national environmental policy goals. 
The selection of Alternative A, as reflected by the analysis contained 
in the environmental impact statement, would not result in the 
impairment of park resources and would allow the National Park Service 
to conserve park resources and provide for their enjoyment by visitors.

    Dated: June 18, 2001.
Alan W. Cox,
Superintendent, Chiricahua National Monument, National Park Service.
    Dated: June 19, 2001.
Michael D. Synder,
Acting Director, Intermountain Region, National Park Service.
[FR Doc. 01-28302 Filed 11-9-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P