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 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 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.
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
