![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
General Management Plan Abbreviated Final Environmental Impact Statement Death Valley National Park, California/Nevada; Notice of Approved Record of Decision
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: March 26, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 58)]
[Notices]
[Page 13796-13799]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26mr02-68]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
General Management Plan Abbreviated Final Environmental Impact
Statement Death Valley National Park, California/Nevada; Notice of
Approved Record of Decision
SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior, National Park Service, has
prepared a Record of Decision on the Final General Management Plan and
Abbreviated Final Environmental Impact Statement for Death Valley
National Park. The Record of Decision includes background on the
conservation planning effort, a description of the decision made and
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 discussion of measures to
minimize environmental harm, and an overview of public and agency
involvement in the decision-making process. The new General Management
Plan will be used by park staff as a ``blueprint'' for managing the
park over the next 10-15 years.
Decision (Selected Action): As detailed in the Record of Decision,
the National Park Service (NPS) will implement Alternative 1, the
proposed action, described in the Revised Draft Environmental Impact
Statement and General Management Plan and the Abbreviated Final
Environmental Impact Statement and General Management Plan. As a public
service subsequent to the approval of the Record of Decision, the NPS
will excerpt and reprint the final General Management Plan (the
selected alternative) as a stand-alone Presentation Plan document. The
selected alternative was both the agency-preferred alternative and the
environmentally preferred alternative.
The selected plan represents the best mix of actions, policies, and
strategies for the management of Death Valley National Park, given
diverse public opinion and varying mandates. The General Management
Plan (GMP) envisions the park as a natural environment and a cultural
landscape (an arid ecosystem overlain by many layers of human
occupation and use from prehistoric to historic to the present time),
where the protection of native desert ecosystems and processes is
assured for future generations. The protection and perpetuation of
native species in a self-sustaining environment is a primary long-term
goal. The GMP seeks to manage the park to perpetuate the sense of
discovery and adventure that currently exists. This means limiting new
development inside the park. The GMP envisions adjacent ``gateway''
communities as providing increased support services (food, gas, and
lodging) for visitors, but also seeks to retain current opportunities
for roadside camping, backcountry camping, and access to the
backcountry via existing primitive roads, consistent with the NPS
mission. The current park management strategies and policies will apply
to the new park lands and put in place the necessary planning and
management components to adequately address the Wilderness designation
of 95% of the park lands. The GMP also fulfills the NPS mission of
resource preservation and provision of visitor services while achieving
other mandates from Congress. A stated goal of the GMP is to seek
funding to purchase private property within the park from willing
sellers.
Other Alternatives Considered: In addition to the proposal, other
alternatives considered included ``existing management'' and an
``optional management'' approach. The existing management alternative
(Alternative 2) describes the continuation of current management
strategies. It is commonly referred to as the no-action or status quo
alternative. It provides a baseline from which to compare other
alternatives, to evaluate the magnitude of proposed changes, and to
assess the potential environmental
[[Page 13797]]
effects of those changes. This ``no new actions'' concept follows the
guidance of the Council on Environmental Quality, which describes the
No Action Alternative as no change from the existing management
direction or level of management intensity. It does not mean that no
agency management actions would be taken. Death Valley National Park
would continue managing the park according to policies and strategies
identified in the 1989 GMP.
The optional approach (Alternative 3) is similar to the proposed
action, except this alternative identifies the closing and restoration
to a natural condition of the Chicken Strip airstrip at Saline Valley
(adversely affecting those people who visit the area by airplane). This
alternative also proposes closing the historic Emigrant campground
because of potential flood hazards. All areas within the Eureka-Saline
wilderness road corridor would be open for roadside camping. Designated
car camping sites would be established in the area of the Saline Valley
warm springs. Additional distinctions were detailed in the approved
Record of Decision.
Basis for Decision: The selected GMP provides a logical, systematic
and proactive approach to management of the Park in compliance with NPS
laws, regulations and policies. The further rationale for selecting
Alternative 1 over the no-action Alternative is based on the lessened
environmental impacts that would be anticipated to occur by seeking
funds and implementing activities identified in the proposed plan.
Public opinion also helped inform the NPS's preferred approach over
Alternative 3. In particular, preserving the natural quiet and sounds
associated with the physical and biological resources of the park,
management of Wilderness for maximum protection, funding of the full
removal of feral burros, enhanced interpretive information to educate
the public on desert ecosystems, geological processes, and the
prehistoric, historical and Native American record, and improved
administrative operations are among the key elements of the new GMP.
No Impairment of Park Resources and Values: The NPS may not allow
the impairment of park resources and values unless directly and
specifically provided for by legislation or by the proclamation
establishing the park. Impairment that is prohibited by the NPS's
Organic Act and the General Authorities Act is an impact that, in the
professional judgment of the responsible 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 impairment may ensue from an action,
park managers consider duration, severity, and magnitude of the impact;
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 National Park Service planning documents.'' (NPS Management
Policies, 2001).
This policy does not prohibit impacts to park resources and values.
The NPS 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 Death Valley National
Park 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. Thus, the ability of the public to experience, understand,
appreciate, and enjoy the park could be impaired under the no-action
alternative.
The NPS has determined that implementing Alternative 1 will not
constitute an impairment to Death Valley National Park's resources and
values. This conclusion is based on a thorough analysis of the
environmental impacts described in the Revised Draft EIS/GMP, the
Abbreviated Final EIS/GMP, the public comments received, relevant
scientific studies, and the professional judgment of the decision-maker
guided by the direction in NPS Management Policies. While the plan may
result in some minor negative impacts, in all cases these adverse
impacts are the result of proactive strategies intended to implement
the NPS mission, policies, and regulations in the management of Death
Valley National Park. None of the proposals would result in impacts
that would impair the integrity of park resources or values, including
opportunities that would otherwise be present for the enjoyment of
those resources or values. Overall, the plan results in major, long-
term benefits to park resources and values and opportunities for their
enjoyment; it does not result in their impairment.
The actions comprising Alternative 1 will achieve the goals of the
California Desert Protection Act and NPS management policies (which
include protecting and enhancing the natural and cultural resources of
Death Valley 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 1 that would cause
overall negligible adverse impacts, minor adverse impacts, short term
impacts, and beneficial impacts to park resources and values, as
described in the Revised Draft EIS/GMP and the Abbreviated Final EIS/
GMP, 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
during the NEPA process include effects related to removal of exotic
burros and protecting threatened park resources and values. Beneficial
effects do not constitute impairment.
The collective actions discussed in Alternative 1 are proposed as a
means of managing Death Valley National Park in a manner that would
result in a protected native desert ecosystem that functions without
interference from human activities, while allowing visitor use and
Congressionally mandated resource consumptive activities. While some of
these activities may seem contrary to the NPS preservation mission
(e.g. grazing, mining), Congress specifically provides for these
activities (under NPS regulation) in the park pursuant to the
California Desert Protection Act. These activities may only be allowed
subject to other applicable laws and regulations. This proposal
outlines management strategies for these activities, and others, that
would be implemented to minimize potential impacts from these
activities to levels below the threshold of impairment. For example,
all future mining operations would be required to undergo NPS review
and impact analysis under 36 CFR part 9, subpart A. Also, a grazing
management plan would
[[Page 13798]]
be developed to manage the one remaining cattle grazing permit so that
park resources are protected. The proposed actions included in this
alternative would establish an overall management approach that would
allow activities to occur in the park without impairing the integrity
of park resources or values, including opportunities that would
otherwise be present for the enjoyment of those resources or values.
In addition, the NPS has determined that the environmentally
preferable alternative is Alternative 1. In aggregate, Alternative 1
best achieves the six conditions prescribed under Sec. 101 of NEPA.
While some of the actions in other alternatives may be similar to
Alternative 1 in their effect and consequence, Alternative 1: (1)
Provides the highest level of protection of natural and cultural
resources while concurrently attaining the widest range of 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 NPS investigated all
practical means to avoid or minimize environmental impacts that could
result from implementating the various actions. The measures are fully
incorporated into Alternative 1 (as analyzed in the Revised Draft EIS/
GMP and the Abbreviated Final EIS/GMP (see Appendix E in Revised Draft
EIS/GMP). Monitoring and enforcement programs will supplement 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, and other
mitigation measures. Mitigation measures will also be applied to all
future actions that are guided by this plan. In addition, the NPS will
conduct specific compliance reviews (i.e., National Environmental
Policy Act, Wilderness Act, National Historic Preservation Act,
Endangered Species Act, and other relevant legislation) for any future
actions.
Background of Planning Process: This extensive conservation
planning effort was prompted by the enactment of the California Desert
Protection Act (CDPA) on October 31, 1994. CDPA transferred over 3
million acres of California desert lands from the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) to the NPS and designated nearly 8 million acres of
Wilderness on NPS and BLM lands. In addition, CDPA redesignated Death
Valley as a national park (likewise Joshua Tree National Park, and
Mojave National Preserve was created). Wide ranging changes confronting
the management of the public lands in the California desert, including
increasing wildland development, mounting public use pressures, the
formal listing of the desert tortoise, and passage of CDPA itself
prompted NPS, BLM, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service desert managers
to address these and other anticipated changes through development of
updated or new management plans.
The significant expansion of Death Valley National Park with 1.3
million additional acres and the designation of over 95% of the park's
lands as Wilderness clearly warranted the development of a new general
management plan (GMP) to update and replace a 1989 GMP written for the
former Monument. The GMP will serve as the overall management strategy
for the next 10-15 years, and is a ``blueprint'' under which more
detailed activity or implementation plans are to be prepared (the new
GMP is general rather than specific in nature, and focuses on purposes
of the unit, significant attributes, overall mission of the agency,
what activities are appropriate within these constraints, resource
protection strategies, provides guidelines for visitor use and
development of facilities for visitor enjoyment and administration of
the park). The goal of the GMP is to determine how best to manage the
park to meet Congressional intent as expressed in the CDPA and the
mission of the NPS. It was the stated intention of this conservation
planning effort to explore only alternatives that would result in an
implementable management plan for the park. Alternatives that would
require legislation before they could be implemented, were contrary to
specific Congressional direction or NPS regulations or policy, or
require vast sums of funding to implement, would create unreasonable
expectations on the part of the public and would not serve the need of
creating an implementable management plan for this unit. Therefore,
only alternatives that explore the range of options for managing uses
mandated by Congress were evaluated.
Preparation of this GMP began in 1995 with the selection and
stationing of a planning team in Barstow, California. The Notice of
Intent was published in the Federal Register on September 5, 1995. The
planning team conducted 20 public scoping meetings in September 1995
and April 1997 to gather public input on the management direction for
the park and BLM lands. In addition, a number of agency scoping
meetings were held. From this input and meetings with interested
parties (such as county departments, special interest groups, state
agencies, Native American tribes, etc.) and discussions with NPS and
BLM staff, proposed management plans were developed.
In September 1998 the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/General
Management Plan (EIS/GMP) was released for public review. Approximately
450 printed copies (and 100 CD-ROMs) of the Draft EIS/GMP were
distributed for review; the entire document was also posted on the
internet with links from the park's homepage and the Northern and
Eastern Mojave planning page. The notice of filing of the Draft EIS/GMP
was published in the Federal Register by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) on September 11, 1998 (FR 48727). Written comments were
accepted from September 11, 1998, through January 15, 1999, a period of
127 days. Eleven public meetings were held in October 1998 throughout
the planning region of southern California and southern Nevada. In
addition, the planning team participated in numerous meetings of the
Death Valley Advisory Commission to obtain their feedback, concerns,
and direction regarding the development of the GMP. Death Valley
received approximately 600 comment letters from government agencies,
tribes, interest groups, and individuals. In addition, members of
environmental groups sent approximately 1,800 identical postcards.
Several additional letters and postcards were received after the
closing date for public comments.
Due to the large number of substantial changes required as a result
of public comment on the 1998 Draft EIS/GMP, the NPS decided to rewrite
the document. In September 2000, a Revised Draft Environmental Impact
Statement and General Management Plan was released for 92 days of
public review. Responses to written public comments on the 1998 Draft
EIS/GMP were addressed in a separately bound report. A notice of filing
was published in the Federal Register by the EPA on September 6, 2000
(FR 54062-54064). Eleven more public meetings on the revised materials
were held in southern California and southern Nevada during October and
November 2000. During the public comment period, a total of 47 written
comments were received. All substantive comments on the 1998 Draft
DEIS/GMP were addressed in a separate document that was made available
concurrent with the Revised EIS/GMP.
[[Page 13799]]
After consideration of substantive public comments on the Revised
EIS/GMP (which surfaced no new major issues or information gaps), the
NPS decided to prepare an Abbreviated Final Environmental Impact
Statement and General Management Plan, dated June 2001. The abbreviated
format was used because changes to the revised draft document were
minor and confined primarily to factual corrections, which do not
modify the analysis. This abbreviated format requires that the material
be integrated with the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement and
General Management Plan to comprise the full record of the
environmental impact analysis and public comment.
Conclusion: Alternative 1 provides the most comprehensive and
proactive strategy among the alternatives considered for meeting the
NPS's purposes, goals, and criteria for managing Death Valley National
Park in accordance with Congressional direction, federal laws, and NPS
management policies. The selection of Alternative 1, as reflected by
the analysis contained in the environmental impact statement, would not
result in the impairment of park resources and would allow the NPS to
conserve park resources and provide for their enjoyment by visitors. To
obtain a copy of the Presentation Plan document when it becomes
available, or for the complete Record of Decision at this time,
requests may be sent to the Superintendent, Death Valley National Park,
Death Valley, California, 92328.
Dated: September 27, 2001.
Patricia L. Neubacher,
Acting Regional Director, Pacific West Region, National Park Service.
[FR Doc. 02-7248 Filed 3-25-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P