Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (Visitor Management and Resource Protection Plan): Zion National Park, Utah

292 Pages·1999·17 MB·English

by  National Park Service

r
DRAFT
29.19/yZ 6/2/
I
DRAFT
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN/
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
(VISITOR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCE PROTECTION PLAN)
ZION
National Park • Utah
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2012 with funding from
LYRASIS IVIembers and Sloan Foundation
http://archive.org/details/draftgeneralmana99nati
DRAFT
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
/
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
(VISITOR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCE
PROTECTION PLAN)
ZION
National Park Utah

DRAFT
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
(VISITOR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCE PROTECTION PLAN)
ZION NATIONAL PARK
Washington, Iron, and Kane Counties, Utah
This Draft GeneralManagement Plan/Environmental Impact Statement describes and analyzes
a proposed action and three alternatives for managing and using Zion National Park. The plan is
intended to provide a foundation to help park managers guide park programs and set priorities. The
alternative that is finally chosen as the plan will guide the management ofZion National Park over the
next 15 to 20 years.
The "no-action," or status quo, alternative provides a baseline for comparing the other three
alternatives. Under this alternative, park managers will undertake no new construction projects or
make any major changes in managing visitor use, except to implement the transportation system in the
main canyon.
Three action alternatives would create zones within the park to protect resources and provide
opportunities for a range ofvisitor experiences. All three action alternatives limit park visitation in
some backcountry areas, although many ofthese areas are inaccessible anyway due to their steep
topography. In addition, all ofthe action alternatives call for making adjustments to the park boundary.
The proposed action would emphasize proactive management to address impacts caused by increased
visitor use. Under this alternative, overall park visitation would continue to increase, but it would be
limited in certain areas. Some new visitor facilities would be built in frontcountry areas. Alternative
A would provide greater opportunities for increased use ofZion. Access would be improved inside the
park by upgrading or building trails and designating new routes. Additional picnic areas, interpretive
facilities, and backcountry campsites also would be provided. AUernative B emphasizes the additional
protection ofpark resources while still providing opportunities for a range of visitor experiences.
Under alternative B, the number and frequency ofshuttles going from Zion Canyon Lodge to the
Temple ofSinawava would be reduced, and the lodge would be converted to a research/environmental
education center.
A wild and scenic river suitability/eligibility study is included in this document for all ofthe
drainages in the park and several drainages on adjacent lands managed by the Bureau ofLand
Management. The three action alternatives recommend the inclusion offive drainages and their
tributaries in the national wild and scenic rivers system.
This document also discusses the potential consequences ofeach alternative's actions on natural
resources, visitoruse and experiences, and the socioeconomic environment. In general, the three action
alternatives would better protect the park's natural resources than the no-action alternative. Alternative
A would provide for greater visitoruse than today, but also would have the most negative impacts on
natural resources. Alternative B would provide the greatest protection ofnatural resources, but would
have the most negative impacts on visitor use. The proposed action would best protect the park's
natural resources while also maintaining a range ofhigh-quality visitorexperiences.
For questions about this document, contact the park planning coordinator, Darla Sidles, Zion
National Park, Springdale, UT 84767-1099, or call 435-772-021 1. Comments on this document will be
accepted through February 1 1, 2000, at the above address.
United States Departmentofthe Interior• National Park Service

HOW THIS DOCUMENT IS ORGANIZED
This document has five main parts. The surrounding Zion. Information in the
"Introduction" explains why the plan is "Affected Environment" part provides the
necessary and what the plan will accomplish. context for analyzing the impacts ofthe
It provides background information about management alternatives.
Zion National Park and describes the park's
purposes, significance, and mission goals. The The next part, "Environmental Conse-
Introduction also identifies the major issues quences," describes the effects each
and concerns offocus ofthis plan and alternative would have on key park resources,
describes National Park Service (NPS) visitor experiences and uses, and the
policies and standard park practices that have socioeconomic environment in the region.
guided, and continue to guide, the manage-
ment ofZion National Park. The last part, "Consultation and Coordi-
nation," describes the process the planning
The "Alternatives, Including the Proposed team used to involve the public and consult
Action" part presents alternatives for with other agencies during the development of
managing Zion National Park. The no-action this plan.
alternative describes the present approach to
managing Zion without the implementation of The appendixes include a summary ofthe key
a new management plan. The proposed action legal mandates that affect management and
describes the National Park Service's planning for the park, a description ofthe
preferred approach for managing the park. relationship ofthe General Management Plan
Alternatives A and B present other options for to other planning efforts, detailed definitions
managing Zion. ofthe management zones, a summary ofhow
this plan was developed, and a detailed
The fourth major part is the "Affected description ofhow the drainages in the park
BLM
Environment." This part describes selected and adjacent lands were evaluated for
natural resources ofthe park and visitor inclusion in the national wild and scenic rivers
experiences and uses. This part also describes system.
the socioeconomic conditions in the region
Ill

SUMMARY
The purpose ofthis conceptual plan is to past. Parunuweap Canyon would continue to
describe the general path the National Park be a proposed research natural area and be
Service intends to follow in managing Zion closed to all recreational use. The riverbank
National Park over the next 15 to 20 years. armor and levees along the North Fork ofthe
The approved plan will provide a framework Virgin River in the main Zion Canyon would
forproactive decision making on such issues be maintained. Most ofthe park (92%) is
as visitor use, natural and cultural resource proposed for wilderness designation and
management, and park development, which would continue to be managed under the
will allow park managers to effectively provisions ofthe Wilderness Act.
address future problems and opportunities. In
most cases, new development outside ofthe The proposed action is the plan the National
park would take place to meet visitor needs. Park Service is proposing to implement for
Zion National Park over the next 15 to 20
years. Under this alternative, park managers
ALTERNATIVES would make several changes to proactively
address impacts resulting from increased
The planning team developed four alternatives levels ofvisitor use. The park would be zoned
for managing visitor uses and resources in to ensure that resources were protected and
Zion National Park. Each alternative presents opportunities were provided for a range of
a different management approach for directing quality visitor experiences. Group sizes and
visitor use and resolving conflicts. The visitor numbers would be managed in the
alternatives were based on the park's purposes backcountry. The Zion Canyon Lodge would
and significance, the National Park Service continue to operate as it has in the past. This
mission, other legal mandates and policies, alternative proposes no new major visitor
park issues, public views, and information on facilities; however, small visitor facilities,
visitor use patterns and park resources. such as picnic sites, rest rooms, and short
nature trails, could be built in several areas,
The no-action alternative provides a baseline including Lava Point, the Kolob Canyons, the
for evaluating the changes and impacts ofthe east entrance, and along the Zion-Mt. Carmel
three action alternatives. Under this Highway.
alternative, park managers would continue to
manage Zion as it has in the past, relying on Park managers would continue to permit
the 1977 master plan and related existing increases in overall park visitation. However,
plans. No new construction or major changes they may place limits on current or future
would take place, except for implementing the levels of visitor use on nine trails and routes in
transportation system in the main canyon. All the proposed wilderness, including part ofthe
ofthe park's existing facilities would continue Narrows, Middle Fork ofTaylor Creek, and
to be operated and maintained as they have in La Verkin Creek. The proposed action would
the past, including the Zion Canyon Lodge. not allow recreational use in eight remote
Park managers would continue to limit visitor backcountry areas due to their designation as
day use in the Left Fork ofNorth Creek and research natural areas. Voluntary visitor
the Narrows. shuttles may run along the Zion-Mt. Carmel
Highway to the east entrance, and Parunuweap
The three existing research natural areas Canyon would be open to limited NPS or
would be managed as they have been in the NPS-sanctioned guided interpretive trips.
Summary
Three existing research natural areas (21% of condition. As in all ofthe alternatives, most of
the park) would be deauthorized, while new the park (93%) would be proposed for
research natural areas covering 3% ofthe park wilderness designation and would continue to
would be authorized. Under the proposed be managed according to the provisions ofthe
action, part ofthe North Fork ofthe Virgin Wilderness Act.
River in the main Zion Canyon would be
restored to a more natural condition. Most of Alternative B focuses on providing increased
the park (94%) would continue to be proposed protection for park resources while still
for wilderness designation and would be providing opportunities for a range ofvisitor
managed according to the provisions ofthe experiences. Like in the proposed action,
Wilderness Act. management zones would be applied
throughout the front and backcountry to
Alternative A would provide opportunities proactively manage visitor use. A full-service
for more widespread and increased use of visitor facility would be built near the east
Zion, while still protecting resources and entrance, and a mandatory shuttle system
providing opportunities for a range ofvisitor would be implemented along the Zion-Mt.
experiences. Like in the proposed action, park Carmel Highway. Alternative B would keep
managers would apply management zones other new development in the park to a
throughout the front and backcountry to minimum. Trailheads would be removed and
proactively manage visitor use. The upgrading trailhead parking would be reduced in several
or building oftrails and the designation ofnew areas. Park managers may need to limit
routes would improve access inside the park. current or future levels ofvisitor on sixteen
Additional visitor facilities, including picnic trails and routes in the proposed wilderness,
areas, information facilities, and backcountry including Hop Valley, Middle Fork ofTaylor
campsites, would be provided at Lava Point, Creek, and Orderville Canyon. Alternative B
the Kolob Canyons area, the east entrance would not allow recreational use in nine
area, and along the Kolob-Terrace Road and remote backcountry areas due to their
Zion-Mt. Carmel Highway. designation as research natural areas.
Park managers would continue to permit Under this alternative, the number and
increases in overall park visitation, but may frequency ofshuttles going from the Zion
need to limit current or future use oftw—o trails Canyon Lodge to the Temple ofSinawava
and routes in the proposed wilderness part would be reduced to decrease resource
ofthe Narrows and Mystery Canyon. impacts and improve the quality ofthe visitor
Alternative A would not allow recreational use experience along the Zion Canyon scenic
in six remote backcountry areas due to their drive and in the Narrows. Visitors also would
designation as research natural areas. The be required to take a shuttle along the Zion-
Zion Canyon Lodge would continue to operate Mt. Carmel Highway to the east entrance. The
as it has as in the past. Parunuweap Canyon Zion Canyon Lodge would be converted into a
would be open to limited NPS or NPS- research /environmental education facility.
sanctioned guided interpretive trips along the The National Park Service would authorize
New
river. research natural areas, covering nine research natural areas, including
about 4% ofthe park would be authorized, Parunuweap Canyon, while deauthorizing the
while the three existing research natural areas three existing research natural areas. Under
would be deauthorized. As in the proposed Alternative B, part ofthe North Fork ofthe
action, under Alternative A, part ofthe North Virgin River in the main Zion Canyon would
Fork ofthe Virgin River in the main Zion be restored to a more natural condition. As in
Canyon would be restored to a more natural all ofthe alternatives, most ofthe park (95%)
VI