[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 222 (Friday, November 16, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57733-57737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-28711]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Record of Decision; Final Environmental Impact Statement General 
Management Plan; Zion National Park; Utah

Introduction

    The Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS), has 
prepared this Record of Decision (ROD) on the Final General Management 
Plan/

[[Page 57734]]

Environmental Impact Statement for Zion National Park, Utah. This ROD 
includes a statement of the decision made, synopses of other 
alternatives considered, the basis for the decision, a description of 
the environmentally preferable alternative, a discussion of impairment 
of park resources or values, a listing of measures to minimize 
environmental harm, and an overview of public involvement in the 
decision-making process.

Decision (Selected Action)

    The National Park Service will implement the preferred alternative 
as described in the Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact 
Statement issued in January 2001. Under the selected action, park 
managers will make several changes to proactively address impacts 
resulting from increased levels of visitor use in Zion National Park. 
The park will be zoned to ensure that resources are protected and 
opportunities are provided for a range of quality visitor experiences. 
Most of the park (90%) will continue to be recommended for wilderness 
designation and will be managed according to the provisions of the 
Wilderness Act. In the frontcountry no new major visitor facilities 
will be provided; however, small visitor facilities, such as picnic 
sites and restrooms, could be built in several areas, including the 
Kolob Canyons and the east entrance. Voluntary visitor shuttles may run 
along the Zion-Mt. Carmel Highway to the east entrance. The Zion Canyon 
Lodge will continue to operate as it has in the past. Part of the North 
Fork of the Virgin River in the main Zion Canyon will be restored to a 
more natural condition.
    In the backcountry several management actions will be taken. Three 
existing research natural areas (21% of the park) will be deauthorized, 
while new research natural areas covering 6% of the park will be 
designated. Group size limits and new group encounter rates will be 
instituted as interim standards, pending the completion of a wilderness 
management plan. Park managers may need to limit or reduce visitor 
numbers on 12 trails and routes in the recommended wilderness, 
depending on visitor use levels, including part of the Narrows, Middle 
Fork of Taylor Creek, and La Verkin Creek. Only authorized research and 
NPS-guided educational groups will be allowed in 9,031 acres in mostly 
remote backcountry areas (including Parunuweap Canyon) due to their 
designation as research natural areas.
    The selected action calls for the National Park Service to propose 
five Bureau of Land Management (BLM) areas, totaling approximately 950 
acres, for transfer to the park. Nine access easements, totaling about 
15 miles, and three conservation easements, totaling 2,220 acres, would 
be sought on private lands adjacent to the park. Congressional 
authorization would be required for all these actions.
    Five streams and their tributaries in the park, and six tributaries 
on BLM lands adjacent to the park, will be recommended for inclusion in 
the national wild and scenic rivers system. The five streams in the 
park are: the North Fork of the Virgin River above and below the Temple 
of Sinawava, the East Fork of the Virgin River, North Creek, La Verkin 
Creek, and Taylor Creek. The tributaries extending from the park and 
partly on BLM lands are: Kolob Creek, Goose Creek, Shunes Creek, Willis 
Creek, Beartrap Canyon, and the Middle Fork of Taylor Creek. 
Congressional authorization will be required for inclusion of these 
streams and tributaries in the national wild and scenic rivers system.

Other Alternatives Considered

    Three other alternatives for managing Zion National Park were 
evaluated in the draft and final environmental impact statements.
    The no-action alternative provides a baseline for evaluating the 
changes and impacts of the three action alternatives. Under the no-
action alternative, park managers would continue to manage Zion as it 
has in the past, relying on the 1977 master plan and related existing 
plans. No new construction or major changes would take place, except 
for previously approved developments. All of the park's existing 
facilities would continue to be operated and maintained as they have in 
the past. The three existing research natural areas would be managed as 
they have been in the past. Most of the park (90%) would continue to be 
recommended for wilderness and be managed under the provisions of the 
Wilderness Act.
    Alternative A would provide opportunities for more widespread and 
increased use of Zion, providing opportunities for a range of visitor 
experiences, while protecting resources. New management zones would be 
applied throughout the front and backcountry to proactively manage 
visitor use. The upgrading or building of trails and the designation of 
new routes would improve access inside the park. Additional visitor 
facilities, including picnic areas, information facilities, and 
backcountry campsites, would be provided at Lava Point, the Kolob 
Canyons area, the east entrance area, and along the Kolob-Terrace Road 
and Zion-Mt. Carmel Highway. The Zion Canyon Lodge would continue to 
operate as it has as in the past. Part of the North Fork of the Virgin 
River in the main Zion Canyon would be restored to a more natural 
condition. Most of the park (90%) would continue to be recommended for 
wilderness designation and be managed according to the provisions of 
the Wilderness Act. Group size limits and new encounter rates would be 
instituted as interim standards in the backcountry. Depending on 
visitor use levels, park managers may need to limit or reduce visitor 
numbers in four areas in the recommended wilderness. New research 
natural areas, covering about 4% of the park, would be designated, 
while the three existing research natural areas would be deauthorized. 
Only authorized research and NPS-guided educational groups would be 
allowed on 6,145 acres in remote backcountry areas due to their 
designation as research natural areas. However, under this alternative 
Parunuweap Canyon would be open to limited NPS or NPS-sanctioned guided 
interpretive trips along the river.
    Alternative B focuses on providing increased protection for park 
resources while still providing opportunities for a range of visitor 
experiences. Management zones would be applied throughout the front and 
backcountry to proactively manage visitor use. In the frontcountry a 
full-service visitor facility would be built near the east entrance, 
and a mandatory shuttle system would be implemented along the Zion-Mt. 
Carmel Highway. Alternative B would limit other new development in the 
park to a minimum. In several areas trailheads would be removed and 
trailhead parking would be reduced. The Zion Canyon Lodge would be 
converted to a research/environmental education facility. Part of the 
North Fork of the Virgin River in the main Zion Canyon would be 
restored to a more natural condition. The number and frequency of 
shuttles going from the Zion Canyon Lodge to the Temple of Sinawava 
would be reduced. As in all of the alternatives, most of the park 
(about 90%) would continue to be recommended for wilderness designation 
and would be managed according to provisions of the Wilderness Act. 
Limits on group size and new limits on encounter rates would be 
instituted as interim standards in the backcountry. Depending on 
visitor use levels, park managers may need to limit or reduce visitor 
numbers on 17 trails and routes in the recommended wilderness. About 
14%

[[Page 57735]]

of the park (including Parunuweap Canyon) would be designated as 
research natural areas, while the three existing research natural areas 
would be deauthorized. Only authorized research and NPS-guided 
educational groups would be allowed on 20,348 acres in mostly remote 
backcountry areas due to their designation as research natural areas.
    Alternatives A and B are identical to the selected action in the 
following ways: (1) The BLM areas that would be proposed for transfer 
to the park; (2) the acquisition of access and conservation easements; 
and (3) the streams in the park and on adjacent BLM lands recommended 
for inclusion in the national wild and scenic rivers system.

Basis for Decision

    The Organic Act established the National Park Service in order to 
``promote and regulate the use of parks. * * *'' The Organic Act 
defined the purpose of the national parks as ``to conserve the scenery 
and natural and historic objects and wildlife therein and to provide 
for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will 
leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.'' The 
Organic Act provides overall guidance for the management of Zion 
National Park.
    In reaching its decision to select the preferred alternative, the 
National Park Service considered the purposes for which Zion National 
Park was established, and other laws and policies that apply to lands 
in Zion National Park, including the Organic Act, the Wilderness Act, 
National Environmental Policy Act, existing formal agreements (e.g., 
the Zion National Park Water Rights Settlement Agreement), and the NPS 
Management Policies. The National Park Service also carefully 
considered public comments received during the planning process.
    Each alternative in the General Management Plan presents a 
different framework for managing Zion National Park. As a result, each 
alternative would have different impacts on park resources and 
visitors.
    Compared to all of the alternatives considered, the preferred 
alternative (selected action) best accomplishes protection of park 
resources and maintenance of a range of quality visitor experiences. 
The preferred alternative would have both positive and negative impacts 
on the park's natural resources, but most of the negative impacts would 
be minor and localized. The new management zones would help ensure that 
opportunities for experiencing solitude and natural quiet were 
available in most of the park, although the zones also may adversely 
affect some groups (e.g., saddle stock groups). Providing a few new 
small visitor facilities also would have minor, beneficial effects on 
visitor experiences.
    Unlike the no-action alternative, the preferred alternative 
addresses many of the issues that have arisen since the master plan was 
approved in 1977, including management of the existing research natural 
areas, restoration of the North Fork of the Virgin River's floodplain, 
ensuring access to the park in several areas from adjacent lands, and 
protection of the park's scenic qualities along its boundaries. The 
preferred alternative provides a comprehensive approach for addressing 
impacts from increasing visitor use, particularly in the backcountry. 
In comparison, the no-action alternative does not fully address many of 
these issues or addresses them in a piecemeal fashion. As a result, the 
preferred alternative would have a lower potential than the no-action 
alternative for adverse impacts to such resources as Virgin spinedace 
habitat and desert bighorn sheep. Unlike the no-action alternative, 
restoring part of the North Fork of the Virgin River's floodplain would 
have beneficial effects on the river's values, riparian/wetland 
communities, and possibly southwestern willow flycatcher habitat. Also 
the preferred alternative would be expected to have a positive effect 
on most visitors' experiences, based on the application of the new 
management zones and the development of a few new visitor facilities. 
In contrast, the no-action alternative would likely result in a gradual 
decrease in the quality and range of recreational opportunities, 
increased crowding, declining condition of park resources, and 
diminished opportunities for quiet and solitude in areas not closely 
managed.
    The preferred alternative would have a lower potential than 
alternative A for adverse impacts to natural resources in certain 
areas, such as the potential for impacts to the desert bighorn sheep 
range--there would be a greater potential in alternative A than in the 
preferred alternative for adverse impacts caused by increased visitor 
use within a large portion of the desert bighorn sheep range in canyons 
along the Zion-Mt. Carmel Highway. The preferred alternative also would 
have a lower potential than Alternative A for loss of microbiotic soils 
due to the amount of new development proposed and higher use levels. In 
addition, impacts to the natural soundscape would be lower under the 
preferred alternative than alternative A due to expected higher use 
levels in the former alternative.
    Compared to alternative B, the preferred alternative would result 
in far fewer adverse impacts on visitor use and personal choice in much 
of the park. Unlike the preferred alternative, under alternative B 
there would be the potential for moderate to major adverse impacts to 
the experiences of many visitors. For example, there would be fewer 
opportunities in alternative B to experience Zion Canyon above the 
lodge, to stay overnight in the park, to ride horses, and to visit many 
parts of the backcountry.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

    Records of decision are required under Council on Environmental 
Quality regulations to identify the environmentally preferable 
alternative. Environmentally preferable is defined as ``the alternative 
that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in 
Sec. 101 of the National Environmental Policy Act. 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 heath 
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 is the NPS preferred 
alternative in the Final Zion National Park General Management Plan/
Environmental Impact Statement because it surpasses the other 
alternatives in realizing the full range of national environmental 
policy goals in section 101. This alternative provides a high level of 
protection of natural and cultural resources while concurrently 
providing for a wide range of neutral and beneficial uses of the 
environment. The alternative maintains an environment that supports a 
diversity and variety of individual choices. And it integrates resource 
protection with an appropriate range of visitor uses.

[[Page 57736]]

    The no-action alternative does not provide as much resource 
protection as the preferred alternative `` resource impacts would be 
expected to increase with increasing use levels, particularly in the 
backcountry. Visitor experience impacts also would likely increase 
under this alternative. Thus, compared to the preferred alternative, 
the no-action alternative does not meet as well national environmental 
policy goals 3 (attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the 
environment without degradation), 4 (preserve important natural aspects 
and maintain an environment that supports diversity and variety of 
individual choice), 5 (achieve a balance between population and 
resource use), and 6 (enhance the quality of renewable resources).
    Alternative A provides for the greatest range of visitor 
experiences and access to Zion National Park. However, there would be a 
higher potential for impacts to natural resources under this 
alternative compared to the preferred alternative. Thus, alternative A 
does not meet policy goals 3 (attain the widest range of beneficial 
uses without degradation), 4 (preserve important natural aspects), and 
6 (enhance the quality of renewable resources) to the same degree as 
the preferred alternative.
    Although alternative B provides a higher level of resource 
protection than the preferred alternative, it restricts visitor 
experiences and thus does not fully achieve goals 3 (providing the 
widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation) 
and 5 (achieving a balance between population and resource use) `` 
alternative B does not realize these national environmental policy 
goals to the same extent as the preferred alternative.

Findings on Impairment of Park Resources and Values

    The National Park Service may not allow the impairment of park 
resources and values unless directly and specifically provided for by 
legislation or proclamation establishing the park. Impairment that is 
prohibited by the NPS Organic Act and the General Authorities Act is an 
impact that, in the professional judgment of the responsible NPS 
manager, would harm the integrity of park resources or values, 
including the opportunities that otherwise would be present for the 
enjoyment of those resources or values. In determining whether an 
impairment would occur, park managers examine the duration, severity 
and magnitude of the impact; the resources and values affected; and 
direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the action. According to 
NPS 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 NPS planning documents.''
    This policy does not prohibit all 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 an 
impairment. Moreover, an impact is less likely to constitute an 
impairment if it is an unavoidable result, which cannot be further 
mitigated, of an action necessary to preserve or restore the integrity 
of park resources or values.
    After analyzing the environmental impacts described in the Final 
General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement and public 
comments received, the National Pak Service has determined that 
implementation of the preferred alternative will not constitute an 
impairment to Zion National Park's resources and values. The actions 
comprising the preferred alternative are intended to protect and 
enhance the park's natural and cultural resources, and provide for 
high-quality visitor experiences. Overall, the alternative would have 
minor to moderate, beneficial effects on such resources as air quality, 
riparian/wetland communities, hanging gardens, and Virgin spinedace; 
major beneficial effects on the floodplain of the North Fork of the 
Virgin River; and a minor, positive effect on most visitors' 
experiences. From an overall, parkwide perspective, no major adverse 
impacts to the park's resources or the range of visitor experiences and 
no irreversible commitments of resources (other than the loss of soil) 
would be expected. While the alternative would have some adverse 
effects on park resources and visitor experiences, most of these 
impacts would be site-specific, minor to moderate, short-term impacts. 
There is the potential for moderate to major impacts to microbiotic 
soils due to developments and use, but these impacts would occur in 
relatively small, localized areas. Most park lands supporting 
microbiotic soils would not be subject to disturbance.
    Some pack stock users and hikers may be displaced by the 
application of the new management zones. However, other destinations in 
the park are available to these groups. None of the impacts of this 
alternative would adversely affect resources or values to a degree that 
would prevent the National Park Service from fulfilling the purposes of 
the park, threaten the natural integrity of the park, or eliminate 
opportunities for people to enjoy the park.

Measures To Minimize Environmental Harm

    Measures to avoid or minimize environmental harm that could result 
from implementation of the selected action have been identified and 
incorporated into the preferred alternative and are described in detail 
in the Final General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement. 
Natural resource mitigation measures are described in the ``Park 
Policies and Practices'' chapter, the description of the preferred 
alternative, and in the analysis of environmental impacts. Measures to 
minimize environmental harm include, but are not limited to: timing of 
trail openings/closures; restricting visitor activities at certain 
times and locations; siting projects and facilities in previously 
disturbed or developed locations; employing erosion control measures, 
restoration of habitats using native plant materials; visitor education 
programs, ranger patrols, erecting barriers and signs to reduce or 
prevent impacts; allowing only the use of weed-free materials and 
equipment in the park; conducting visitor surveys and monitoring 
visitor use patterns; monitoring changes in the condition of natural 
and cultural resources; monitoring construction activities; and 
consulting with the Utah state historical preservation officer and U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service when appropriate.

Public Involvement

    The National Park Service provided numerous opportunities for the 
public to participate in the Zion National Park general management 
planning process. The planning team primarily used newsletters and 
workbooks to solicit public comments and suggestions for the plan. 
During the course of the planning process six newsletters and one 
workbook were sent to the park's mailing list, which consisted of over 
1,000 names. Each of the newsletters and the workbook provided the 
opportunity for feedback and comments from the public. The planning 
team held three focus group meetings to gain public input on aircraft 
overflights, river recreation, and climbing/canyoneering. Meetings were 
also held with the Springdale Planning Commission, Southwest Utah 
Planning Authorities

[[Page 57737]]

Council, Five County Association of Governments, the Utah Natural 
Resource Coordinating Committee, and the Utah Rural Summit. In 
addition, members of the planning team consulted with and sought the 
views of several agencies and governments, including the Kaibab Paiute, 
Moapa, and Paiute Indian Tribes, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau 
of Land Management, and the Utah state historic preservation officer.
    The comment period on the draft plan initially ran from December 6, 
1999, through February 11, 2000. A notice of availability was published 
in the December 6, 1999, Federal Register. After several requests were 
received, the comment period was extended to February 29, 2000. The 
planning team held five public meetings on the draft environmental 
impact statement from January 6 through January 13, 2000. Meetings were 
held in Cedar City, Springdale, Kanab, St. George, and Salt Lake City. 
Over 500 separate written responses were received during the comment 
period.
    One individual and one business sent in comments on the Final 
General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement during the 30-
day no-action period. The business, UtahMountainBiking.com, opposed the 
addition of the Rockville Bench area to the park because this action 
would close the Slickrock Swamp Trail to mountain bikes. The individual 
was concerned that the city of Springdale did not comment sufficiently 
on several issues in the plan. No new substantive issues were raised in 
the two comment letters.
    The notice of availability for the final environmental impact 
statement was published in the May 8, 2001 Federal Register. The 30-day 
``no action'' period ended on June 7, 2001.

Conclusion

    Among the alternatives considered, the preferred alternative best 
protects the diversity of park resources while also maintaining a range 
of quality visitor experiences, meets NPS purposes and goals for 
managing Zion National Park, and meets national environmental policy 
goals. The preferred alternative 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. The 
officials responsible for implementing the selected alternative are the 
Regional Director, Intermountain Region, and the Superintendent, Zion 
National Park.

    Dated: June 18, 2001.
Michael D. Synder,
Acting Regional Director, Intermountain Region, National Park Service.
[FR Doc. 01-28711 Filed 11-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P