PARIA CANYON/VERMILION CLIFFS WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SCOPING REPORT
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Arizona Strip District
August 2019
PCVC EA Scoping Report August 2019
CONTENTS
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...... iv 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Purpose ...... 3 1.3 Location ...... 3 1.4 Document Organization ...... 3 2. SCOPING PROCESS ...... 4 2.1 Advertising of Public Meetings ...... 4 2.2 Public Scoping Meetings ...... 4 2.3 Opportunities for Public Comment ...... 5 3. SCOPING CONTENT ANALYSIS ...... 6 3.1 Development of the Coding Structure ...... 6 3.2 Comment Analysis ...... 7 3.3 Identification and Coding of Comments ...... 7 3.4 Preparation of Scoping Report ...... 8 4. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS ...... 9 4.1 Submittals Received ...... 9 4.1.1 Geographic Origin ...... 9 4.1.2 Organizational Affiliation ...... 9 4.2 Comments Identified ...... 10 4.2.1 Recommendations on Changing the Number of Visitors Allowed ...... 10 4.2.2 Topics, Issues, and Concerns ...... 11 5. PRELIMINARY CONCERNS ...... 15 5.1 Resource Protection ...... 15 5.2 Public Health and Safety ...... 15 5.3 Wildlife, Vegetation, and Ecosystem Condition...... 15 5.4 Visitor Facilities ...... 15 5.5 Permit Process and Socioeconomic Issues ...... 16 6. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION ACTIONS ...... 17 6.1 Resource Protection ...... 17 6.2 Public Health and Safety ...... 17 6.3 Visitor Facilities ...... 17 7. FUTURE STEPS IN THE EA PROCESS ...... 18 APPENDIX A Press Release ...... 1 APPENDIX B Scoping Letter ...... 1 APPENDIX C Scoping Meeting Maps ...... 1
ii PCVC EA Scoping Report August 2019
APPENDIX D Scoping Meeting Display Boards...... 1 APPENDIX E Comment Card...... 1
Figures
Figure 1.1 Map of the Western Portion of the Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness, including the Coyote Buttes North Permit Area, and the Wave...... 2 Figure 4.1 Input for Visitor Numbers Shown as Percentage of Non-Form Letter Comment Documents ...... 11 Figure 4.2 Most Commonly Identified Issues (no other categories exceeded 10% of comment documents) ...... 13
Tables
Table 2.1 Meeting Notification Methods and Dates ...... 4 Table 2.2 Public Scoping Meeting Dates, Times (local times), and Locations ...... 4 Table 3.1 Issue Identification Categories ...... 6 Table 3.2 Recommendation Category Codes and Descriptors ...... 7 Table 4.1 General Distribution of Comments Identified in the Submittals Received during Public Scoping ...... 9 Table 4.2 Distribution of Non-Form Letter Comment Documents ...... 9 Table 4.3 Comments Regarding Permitted Number of Visitors ...... 10 Table 4.4 Topics, Issues, and Concerns ...... 12 Table 4.5 List of Miscellaneous Topics ...... 14
iii PCVC EA Scoping Report August 2019
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
BLM Bureau of Land Management
CBN Coyote Buttes North
CBS Coyote Buttes South
EA environmental assessment
GSENM Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument,
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
PCVC Paria Canyon – Vermilion Cliffs
RMP Resource Management Plan
WMP wilderness management plan
iv PCVC EA Scoping Report August 2019
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
In recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in public demand to visit the Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs (PCVC) Wilderness (designated by Congress in 1984), and in particular Coyote Buttes North (CBN), where the feature known as “The Wave” is located (see Figure 1.1). The Wave is a relatively small area of banded sandstone shaped by erosion into visually striking U-shaped formations. Access to the Wave requires a 6.4 mile round-trip hike on sandstone and sand dunes, all of which is within designated wilderness. Several hiking websites and guidebooks describe the relative difficulty of the route as ‘moderate’. While this is accurate from a topographic perspective, other aspects of the hike render it more difficult than the ‘moderate’ label implies. No trail is discernible for most of the hike, and, in compliance with the Wilderness Act of 1964, route signage is minimal within the wilderness portion of the route. There is no water, and little shade on the route. Weather conditions can be extreme, with hot temperatures in spring, summer, and early fall, and cold temperatures in winter. Lost hikers and medical emergencies, particularly heat-related ailments, occur often, including several fatalities in recent years.
The increase in demand has been prompted in large part by national and international media coverage as well as social media. The Wave has been featured on ABC Nightline’s “Heat Tourists”, National Geographic, Backpacker magazine, Canada’s “Love Nature “series, as well as CNN, Tokyo Broadcasting System, NBC affiliate KSL5, CBS affiliate KUTV News2, Fox13, the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News. The increasing publicity has drawn the attention of people who are not particularly experienced hikers, thus increasing the risk of lost and/or distressed visitors.
Management of the area is governed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Vermilion Cliffs National Monument Resource Management Plan (RMP) (2008), Kanab Field Office RMP (2008), Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Management Plan (1999), and the PCVC Wilderness Management Plan (WMP) (1987), amended in 1998. In order to preserve both the resource itself and the quality of the wilderness experience, the PCVC WMP limits the number of daily visitors by requiring them to acquire a permit for hiking to the Wave. At present, permits for no more than 20 people per day are issued by the BLM. Permits for 10 people per day are issued via an on-line lottery, and the balance via walk-in lottery at the BLM office in Kanab, Utah. The number of applications for permits has, however, dramatically increased in recent years to the point where public demand far exceeds the number of permits issued. Currently only 4.3% of applicants are successful in obtaining a permit to access the Wave. In 2018, 168,317 applications were received for the 7,300 total permits available. This demand has demonstrated a need for the BLM to consider ways to increase visitor access through a variety of possible actions, including increasing visitor use allocations. The BLM is considering increasing daily visitor limits from 20 people to a maximum of 96 people per day in CBN (based on limits established in the Vermilion Cliffs National Monument RMP). No changes to permit numbers for Coyote Buttes South (CBS) or Buckskin/Paria Canyon are proposed.
Since the 1998 WMP amendment, additional issues have arisen besides visitor use allocations that could affect use of the wilderness and have adverse effects on resources. These issues include resource damage (such as animal and human waste, impacts to wilderness character, and physical damage to geologic features); public safety; and additional administrative facilities (such as parking and restroom facilities at trailheads) to better meet public needs.
The BLM will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to analyze the impacts associated with allowing more people to visit the Wave, as well as to address additional issues including those listed above (see Appendix A (Press Release).
1 PCVC EA Scoping Report August 2019
Figure 1.1 Map of the Western Portion of the Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness, including the Coyote Buttes North Permit Area, and the Wave
2 PCVC EA Scoping Report August 2019
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of considering a change is to improve visitor access, as outlined in Secretarial Orders 3347 and 3366, while preserving the values for which the wilderness was designated; solitude, naturalness, and outstanding primitive and unconfined recreation opportunities. During the scoping phase of the environmental review process, the BLM sought the public’s input on what issues should be analyzed in considering whether to increase visitor numbers in CBN, as well as additional issues related to management of the wilderness that could affect use of the wilderness and have effects on resources. The scoping letter issued by the BLM is provided in Appendix B.
1.3 Location
The Wave is located in northcentral Arizona and is part of a Special Management Area within the Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness called CBN (see Figure 1.1). Accessing the Wave requires a 3.2 mile (one-way) hike, all of which is within the PCVC Wilderness. The trailhead, which includes restrooms and parking, and most of the hiking route, are in Utah.
1.4 Document Organization
This document contains summary descriptions of the:
• Scoping meetings, including public notices and advertising for the meetings;
• Opportunities for public comment during the scoping period;
• Scoping comment analysis, including how individual letters and comments were coded and recorded; and
• Comments received during the scoping period (May 8, 2019–June 21, 2019), organized by resource.
3 PCVC EA Scoping Report August 2019
2. SCOPING PROCESS
The purpose of scoping is to provide an opportunity for members of the public to learn about the proposed project and to share any concerns or comments they may have. A scoping letter, along with a news release, initiated the scoping period on May 8, 2019; scoping ended on June 21, 2019. Input received from the public is used to identify issues and concerns to be considered in the EA, as well as identify potential alternatives. The list of stakeholders and other interested parties is also updated and generally expanded during the scoping process.
2.1 Advertising of Public Meetings
The scoping meetings were advertised in a variety of formats, prior to their scheduled dates (Table 2.1). In each format, the advertisements provided logistics and explained the purpose of the public meetings, gave the schedule for the public comment (scoping) period, outlined additional ways to comment, and provided methods for obtaining additional information.
Table 2.1 Meeting Notification Methods and Dates
Publicity Item Venue and Date Mailing Email to BLM Stakeholder List – May 8, 2019 News Release (see Appendix A) Posted on the BLM website, Twitter, and Facebook – May 8, 2019
2.2 Public Scoping Meetings
The BLM hosted three public meetings in June 2019, as shown in Table 2.2. The meetings were conducted in an open house format, designed to allow attendees to: view informational displays; ask BLM resource specialists about the current situation, the potential for increasing and managing visitation, and the EA process; and submit written comments on-site. Meeting attendees signed in upon entering, at which time they were provided with handouts and informed of the meeting format and how to provide comments. The handouts and displays (Appendices B, C, D, and E) provided information about the following:
• Project background; • Tentative project schedule; • Preliminary issues to be analyzed in the EA; • Location maps; and • How to provide comments.
Table 2.2 Public Scoping Meeting Dates, Times (local times), and Locations
Date Time City Address Number of Attendees June 4, 2019 6:00–8:00 p.m. Kanab Kanab Middle School, 690 S. Cowboy Way, 63 Kanab, Utah June 5, 2019 6:00–8:00 p.m. Page Courtyard by Marriott, 600 Clubhouse Drive, 39 Page, Arizona June 6, 2019 6:00-8:00 p.m. St George St George Convention Center 1835 South 33 Convention Center Drive, St. George, Utah
4 PCVC EA Scoping Report August 2019
2.3 Opportunities for Public Comment
Members of the public were afforded several methods for providing comments during the scoping period:
• Comments could be recorded on comment forms at the scoping meetings. Comment forms (see Appendix E) were provided to all meeting attendees and were also available throughout the meeting room, where attendees could write and submit comments during the meeting.
• Emailed comments could be sent to a dedicated email address: [email protected].
• Individual letters and comment forms could be mailed via U.S. Postal Service to Bureau of Land Management, Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness Management Plan Amendment, Attn: Brandon Boshell, 345 East Riverside Drive, St. George, UT 84790.
5 PCVC EA Scoping Report August 2019
3. SCOPING CONTENT ANALYSIS
There were four phases used to analyze comments received during public scoping for the EA:
1. Development of an issue coding structure, 2 Importing and organizing all submittal content in a comment database, 3. Carefully reading each submittal and assigning codes to relevant comments, and 4. Preparing a narrative report of the results of the analysis (this report).
3.1 Development of the Coding Structure
A coding structure was developed to help sort comments into logical categories and subcategories by issue. The issue coding structure was derived from the comments themselves, as well as issues associated with the Wave that were identified by BLM resource specialists. The use of these codes allows for quick access to comments on specific topics. Table 3.1 shows the issue categories that were determined to be most inclusive of the substantive comments received during public scoping.
Table 3.1 Issue Identification Categories
Sub- Code Description code Resource Protection RES 01 Wilderness character, solitude 02 Geologic and soil resources 03 Cultural resources 04 Wildlife 05 Waste management 06 Animal control (e.g., dogs, horses) 07 Vegetation 08 Ecosystem condition Public Safety PSF 01 Safety concerns (e.g., risk to public safety, impact on number of emergency response incidents) 02 Education/training 03 Signage 04 Guides 05 Permit controls (e.g., staggered start times from a safety perspective) 06 Conditions on House Rock Valley Road (access road) Visitor Facilities VF 01 Parking 02 Restrooms 03 Wag bags Permit Process PP 01 Procedures (e.g., comments about inefficiency of system, recommendations for improving permit process system, staggered start times from a non-safety perspective, multiple permit areas in CBN) 02 Fairness (e.g., point system, preferential categories) 03 Enforcement (e.g., compliance with permit restrictions, monitoring, patrols) Socio-economic Issues SEC 01 General socio-economic issues (e.g., revenue generation, fee structure, tourism) Miscellaneous MIS 01
6 PCVC EA Scoping Report August 2019
Most commenters offered input on whether the number of visitors allowed should be changed, As such, a second set of codes was developed to capture this information. Five categories were derived from the comments received. Table 3.2 shows these categories and their associated codes.
Table 3.2 Recommendation Category Codes and Descriptors
Recommendati on Code Description 00 No recommendation regarding number of visitors 01 Reduce number of visitors 02 Opposed to any increase above current limit 03 Favors or opposes, but if BLM is to proceed, suggests a moderate increase could be considered (up to 40 to 60 people) 04 Favors or opposes, but if BLM is to proceed, recommends incremental increases over time (5-10 people), with assessment and adaptive management 05 Supports increase (either to 96 or no limit defined)
3.2 Comment Analysis
To analyze comments received, a database was developed to record each comment document. The majority of the comment documents were delivered electronically. Hard-copy submittals were entered into the database manually. Each comment document was recorded in the database with a unique number.
One ‘form letter’ was submitted by multiple commenters. All form letters were individually reviewed; those that contained additional information were entered as a distinct comment. The remaining form letters, since they contained identical content, were entered into the database as a single submittal., and the comments contained therein were parsed and coded once. The number of commenters was logged, and the commenter meta-data was entered.
Any submittals identified as having the same commenter information and content, regardless of delivery format (e.g., hard-copy letter, email) or date, were counted as one submittal; one record was coded for its content according to the method described above. All copies of identical submittals were coded as ‘Duplicate.’
3.3 Identification and Coding of Comments
Once submittal records were coded for commenter and submittal types, each submittal was read carefully to identify substantive issues as identified in Table 3.1 Each individual statement identified as a relevant comment (a.k.a., a ‘scoping comment’) was assigned to a category corresponding to its respective issue (see Table 3.1). Where the commenter expressed an opinion regarding the number of visitors that should be allowed, the comment was assigned a recommendation code.
For each comment document received, there may have been several scoping comments; in these cases, each comment was coded separately based on issue code and sub-code. This form of analysis allows for specific comments to be captured and then grouped under the umbrella of a general issue. It also allows for cross-referencing and comparison. Each discrete comment was entered, with its assigned code, into the comment database.
7 PCVC EA Scoping Report August 2019
3.4 Preparation of Scoping Report
The intent of this scoping report is to provide representative statements that capture all substantive concerns expressed during the scoping comment period. The summary of public scoping comments is a compilation of comments received from the public and various agencies during public scoping. The statements are not necessarily verbatim iterations of comments received but in many cases include similar or exact phrasing.
8 PCVC EA Scoping Report August 2019
4. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS
4.1 Submittals Received
A total of 1,570 submittals were collected during public scoping, not including duplicate submittals. Of the 1,570 submittals, 51% (794) were form letters received through a single organization. Of these, 88% (701 submittals) contained identical content; the remaining 12% (93 submittals) had been modified by the commenter. Table 4.1 shows the total number of submittals received by submittal type.
Table 4.1 General Distribution of Comments Identified in the Submittals Received during Public Scoping
Comment Source Number Non-form letter comment documents 776 Form letter comment documents 794 Total Unique Comment documents 1,570
4.1.1 Geographic Origin
Geographic information was collected from information provided in the comment submittals. Not all commenters provided contact information. Table 4.2 shows the geographic origin of the comment documents.
Table 4.2 Distribution of Non-Form Letter Comment Documents
Location Number Utah 231 Arizona 647 Other U.S. states (31) 221 Foreign* 16 None identified 455 Total 1,570 *Comments were received from: Canada (4), France (2), Germany (5), Hungary (1), India (1), Italy (1), Luxembourg (1), and The Netherlands (1).
4.1.2 Organizational Affiliation
Unaffiliated individuals accounted for 99% (1,552 submittals) of the total submittals, and 11 organizations, agencies, and local governments submitted comments, including:
• Arizona Game and Fish Department • Center for Biological Diversity • City of Page, AZ • Coconino County, AZ • Grand Canyon Trust
9 PCVC EA Scoping Report August 2019
• Kane County Commission, UT • Kane County Office of Tourism, UT • Sierra Club – Grand Canyon and Utah Chapters • Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance • The Wilderness Society • Wild Sheep Foundation
4.2 Comments Identified
All comment documents received during the public scoping period were reviewed to identify substantive comments. As the comment documents were reviewed, they were filtered to remove any duplicate comments from a given individual.
A form letter, originating from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), was received from 794 individuals. Of these, 701 contained the exact same text (see Appendix F) and 93 had modifications. The recommendation offered in the original form letter is not to increase the number of visitors above the current limit (Recommendation Code 02), but a few of the modified form letters made a different recommendation. This is reflected in column 4 of Table 4.3.
4.2.1 Recommendations on Changing the Number of Visitors Allowed
Most commenters provided input about changing the number of visitors allowed per day. Table 4.3 shows the distribution of this input. When the recommendations offered in the form-letter and non-form letter comment documents are combined, over 80% of the comment documents recommend not increasing the number of visitors by any amount above the current limit.
Table 4.3 Comments Regarding Permitted Number of Visitors
Number Number from non- from form Percentage form letter letter of comment comment Total Comment Code Description documents documents Number Documents 00 No recommendation regarding number 38 0 38 2% of visitors 01 Reduce number of visitors 8 2 10 1% 02 Opposed to any increase above current 500 791 1,291 82% limit 03 Favors or opposes, but if BLM is to 136 1 137 9% proceed, suggests a moderate increase could be considered (up to 40 to 60 people) 04 Favors or opposes, but if BLM is to 51 0 51 3% proceed, recommends incremental increases over time (5-10 people), with assessment and adaptive management 05 Supports increase (either to 96 or no 43 0 43 3% limit defined) Total 776 794 1,570 100%
10 PCVC EA Scoping Report August 2019
The percentages in the various recommendation categories shown in Table 4.3 are significantly affected by the number of form letters (794) versus the number of non-form letter comment documents (776). For this reason, Figure 4.1 shows the distribution, by percentage, of how all non-form letter comment documents (including those that did not offer input) addressed the question of changing visitor numbers.
Recommendations for Visitor Numbers Shown as Percentage of Non-Form Letter Comment Documents
6% 5% 1% 6%
18%
64%
No recommendation Reduce number Keep current limit Opposed, but moderate increase could be considered Evaluate incremental increase over time Supports increase
Figure 4.1 Input for Visitor Numbers Shown as Percentage of Non-Form Letter Comment Documents
4.2.2 Topics, Issues, and Concerns
Table 4.4 shows the distribution of individual comments received by resource category and resource code for all comments, broken out by form-letter and non-form letter comment documents. Table 4.5 lists the types of comments that were categorized as ‘miscellaneous’.
11 PCVC EA Scoping Report August 2019
Table 4.4 Topics, Issues, and Concerns
Number Number from non- from form Percentage Resource Sub- form letter letter Total of Comment Code code Description comments comments Comments Documents Resource Protection RES 01 Wilderness character, solitude 332 788 1,120 71 % 02 Geologic and soil resources 418 794 1,212 77 % 03 Cultural resources 6 0 6 <1 % 04 Wildlife 26 784 810 52 % 05 Waste management 91 3 94 6 % 06 Animal control (e.g., dogs, 58 58 4 % horses) 07 Vegetation 15 784 799 51 % 08 Ecosystem condition 12 12 1 % Public Safety PSF 01 Safety concerns (e.g., risk to 112 785 897 57 % public safety, impact on number of emergency response incidents) 02 Education/training 30 30 2 % 03 Signage 46 46 3 % 04 Guides 29 1 30 2 % 05 Permit controls (e.g., staggered 14 14 1 % start times from a safety perspective) 06 Conditions on House Rock Valley 32 32 2 % Road (access road) Visitor Facilities VF 01 Parking 45 45 3 % 02 Restrooms 51 51 3 % 03 Wag bags 37 37 2 % Permit Process PP 01 Procedures (e.g., comments 103 103 7 % about inefficiency of system, recommendations for improving permit process system, staggered start times from a non- safety perspective, multiple permit areas in CBN) 02 Fairness (e.g., point system, 81 81 5 % preferential categories) 03 Enforcement (e.g., compliance 58 58 4 % with permit restrictions, monitoring, patrols) Socio-economic Issues SEC 01 General socio-economic issues 73 73 5 % (e.g., revenue generation, fee structure, tourism) Miscellaneous MIS 01 See Table 4.5 for list of topics 89 89 6 %
12 PCVC EA Scoping Report August 2019
The most commonly identified issues with increasing visitor use numbers as shown in Figure 4.2 are the potential impacts to:
• Wilderness character and solitude; • Geologic and soil resources; • Safety concerns; • Wildlife; and • Vegetation.
Most Commonly Identified Issues 90% 77% 80% 71% 70% 57% 60% 52% 51% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Wilderness Geologic and soil Safety concerns Wildlife Vegetation character, solitude resources
Figure 4.2 Most Commonly Identified Issues (no other categories exceeded 10% of comment documents)
Issues discussed in the form-letter and non-form letter comments are presented in separate columns in Table 4.4 because many of the non-form letter comment documents reference personal experience in visiting CBN and The Wave. The most common input provided by people with first-hand experience largely coincides with the most common issues identified by all commenters. However, the comments made by people with first-hand experience also include issues one is more likely to experience as a visitor, such as parking and restroom facilities, waste management, and animal control. Because of the number of form-letter comments received, these on-the-ground issues appear less concerning in issue statistics for all commenters. They are however included in the list of preliminary concerns to be analyzed in the EA, as they represent the perspective of experienced visitors.
13 PCVC EA Scoping Report August 2019
Table 4.5 List of Miscellaneous Topics
Miscellaneous Topics Incidence Vandalism/graffiti 26 Communications infrastructure 16 Monitoring (establish use patterns, critical thresholds, baseline data; share data) 8 BLM resource (e.g., budget, staffing) needs 6 Volunteers, including patrol procedures, coordination, and safety 6 Campground restrictions, additions, and improvements 6 Improvements to trailheads, including related impacts 5 General need for additional infrastructure 5 Administrative storage facilities 4 BLM policy, justification for action, and staff motivation 4 Inadequate scope of EA/request for EIS analysis and/or RMP amendment 4 Ban drones 3 Develop simulation/replica of the Wave or informational pamphlet 3 Concerns for White Pocket site 2 Engagement with local governments/communities 2 Public meeting in Flagstaff, AZ 2 Engagement with guides to share insights with BLM 2 Increased demand for/use of CBS and related impacts 2 GSENM 2 Continued prohibitions on camping in CBN and CBS 1 Continued prohibition on fires in PC-VC Wilderness 1 Definition of “wilderness” and “wilderness experience” 1 Banning shoes in CBN 1 Establishing staging areas and boardwalks 1 Internet resource to address too much social media attention 1 Suggested alternative for analysis in EA: no limit on visitation 1 Use drones for safety 1 No fly area over CBN 1 Traffic congestion 1 Allow night-time visitation 1 Credibility of public comment process 1 Manage CBN as non-wilderness 1 American Disability Act requirements 1 Impacts to adjacent lands 1 Appropriateness of new access through the Notch 1 Abbreviations: CBN = Coyote Buttes North, CBS = Coyote Buttes South, EA = environmental assessment, EIS = environmental impact statement, GSENM = Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument, PC-VC = Paria Canyon – Vermilion Cliffs
14 PCVC EA Scoping Report August 2019
5. PRELIMINARY CONCERNS
This section represents a summary compilation, organized by concerns identified by members of the public and by groups who submitted comments during the scoping period, including all submittals (i.e., form letters, non-form letters, emailed comments, mailed and/or hand-written comments). These concerns will be considered when developing the alternatives and identifying issues to be analyzed in the EA.
5.1 Resource Protection
• Analyze and disclose the potential impacts on:
o wilderness character of the CBN and the Wave, including routes of ingress and egress. Specific wilderness aspects and concerns identified in the comments include:
. frequency and nature of encounters with other visitors and dogs, . sense of crowdedness, . opportunity to take photographs without other visitors in the frame, . relative serenity of the setting, . noise levels and nature of the sounds, . frequency and nature of encountering evidence of humans (trash, excrement, vandalism, etc.), . natural beauty of setting as it is affected by the presence of humans, and . sense of spirituality inspired by the wilderness setting.
o physical condition of the sandstone formations, water basins, soils, and other physical features at the Wave and along the access route. Particular attention should be paid to fragile landscape features, such as balancing rock formations, and the bands of sandstone known as ‘fins.’ Consideration should be given to the uniqueness of the feature in the world, and its preservation for future generations.
5.2 Public Health and Safety
• Analyze and disclose the potential impacts on public safety, including the potential for increases in the number of lost hikers, safety and medical incidents and emergency responses, and conditions on the House Rock Valley Road (access road). The conditions on the House Rock Valley Road are health and safety related because poor road conditions lead to accidents and stuck or disabled vehicles, which in-turn results in visitors being stranded in a remote location.
5.3 Wildlife, Vegetation, and Ecosystem Condition
• Analyze and disclose the potential impacts on:
o wildlife, including endangered species, o vegetation, and o ecosystem condition.
5.4 Visitor Facilities • Analyze and disclose the potential impacts on visitor facilities (including parking area, restrooms, and trailhead signage at Wire Pass trailhead), and House Rock Valley Road (access road).
15 PCVC EA Scoping Report August 2019
5.5 Permit Process and Socioeconomic Issues
Many comments related to the permit process were received. These include comments on the procedural aspects of the process, such as its fairness, the efficiency of the process, and the location of the walk-in lottery. While these comments address the way the permit system is administered, they are not central to the question of how many visitors should be allowed at the Wave each day. Notwithstanding, commenters offered a host of valuable observations and ideas that can be analyzed and potentially implemented by administrative action (i.e. do not need to be analyzed in an EA in order to implement). These include:
• The walk-in lottery brings visitors to the town where it is located. The walk-in lottery is currently held in Kanab, Utah. Page, Arizona is roughly the same distance as Kanab from the Wire Pass trailhead, and the Wave is located in Arizona, albeit most of the hiking route is in Utah. Opportunities may exist to change some aspects of the walk-in lottery system to allow the community of Page to share in the tourism that comes from hosting the lottery.
• Consider eliminating the walk-in lottery, and go entirely with an on-line system.
• Increase the fee for more crowded days, such as weekends and holidays.
• Do not charge people to apply for a permit, or refund their money if they are not successful.
• Require lottery winners to check in one or two days ahead of time. This would allow unclaimed permits to be offered at the walk-in lottery.
• Increase the cost and put the money back into protection of the resource, improving facilities, and protecting visitor safety.
• Enforce the existing rule that a person can apply only once per month.
• Give certain groups preference in the lottery. Recommendations include: U.S. citizens, military personnel and veterans, and Arizona residents. Some comments recommend no preference be given to anyone.
• Limit the number of permits given to an individual or group (e.g. one permit per year). Would not be applicable to guides.
• Use a lottery with a point system, such as is used for a permit to raft the Grand Canyon. Give priority to applicants who have filed previously and have been unsuccessful in obtaining a permit.
• Increase enforcement of permit requirements, both through education and through increased presence of BLM staff or volunteers at the trailhead or in the hiking area.
• Establish additional permit areas within CBN so that people can visit the area even if they do not have a permit to visit the Wave. Also, establish a second trailhead for hiking into the Wave.
16 PCVC EA Scoping Report August 2019
6. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION ACTIONS
Many commenters included ideas on how to improve management of CBN, including the permit process and/or mitigating the impacts should the number of visitors be increased. The following is a summary of these ideas.
6.1 Resource Protection
• Make more use of guided tours (such as are done in national parks).
• Make the permits for specific time periods to disperse visitors over the day. Other comments suggest staggered start times could increase safety risks.
• Increase the number of rangers working on site.
• Consider raising the number of visitors in only the peak season, not year-round.
• Do not allow dogs or pack animals. Other comments suggest leashed dogs should be allowed.
• Look for ways to increase the effectiveness of educating visitors about wilderness rules and etiquette.
• Require human waste to be packed-out.
6.2 Public Health and Safety
• Increase the number of rangers working on site.
• Increase the capacity to respond to search and rescue, and medical emergencies.
• Look for ways to increase the effectiveness of educating visitors about the dangers associated with the hike, and how to avoid them.
• Require on-line lottery permit holders to attend a safety briefing.
• Conduct only guided hikes.
• Improve House Rock Valley Road. Increase the frequency of maintenance of the road.
6.3 Visitor Facilities
• Increase the size of the parking lot at the Wire Pass trailhead.
• Install more restrooms at the Wire Pass trailhead.
• Install wag-bag disposal containers at the trailhead.
17 PCVC EA Scoping Report August 2019
7. FUTURE STEPS IN THE EA PROCESS
Several more steps in the NEPA process will occur in order to consider and evaluate the potential increase to daily visitor limits, as well as address additional issues related to management of the wilderness. Scoping is the first public involvement opportunity in the process. The BLM’s next step in the NEPA process is to consider comments and concerns collected during scoping, and analysis of issues for the EA that will be undertaken to assess impacts from implementing any of the potential actions.
The BLM will use the comments collected during scoping to define issues and to develop a range of alternatives to address those issues which will be analyzed in the EA. The impacts that could result from implementing the alternatives will be analyzed and documented in the EA.
A preliminary EA will be made available for public review. The availability of the preliminary EA will be advertised in the local and regional media. Public comments will be accepted for 30 days, during which time public meetings will be held to receive comments on the adequacy of the EA. The BLM will review and consider all comments received on the preliminary EA, and the document will be modified as appropriate based on these comments.
Interested parties should visit the BLM’s Registrar NEPA website, ePlanning, for updates on the status of the EA: https://go.usa.gov/xyxtK
18
APPENDIX A
Press Release
BLM seeks public comment for proposed change in management of the Paria Canyon–Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness The change proposed would increase recreational opportunities and visitor access
ST. GEORGE, Utah – The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Arizona Strip Field Office is encouraging public comments on a proposed change in management and other related actions concerning the Paria Canyon–Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness, located east of Kanab, Utah and west of Page, Arizona. A 45-day public comment period will run from May 8 to June 21, 2019.
The proposed change would increase recreational opportunities and visitor access while preserving wilderness values, as directed in Secretarial Orders 3347 and 3366. The BLM is considering increasing daily visitor limits from 20 people to a maximum of 96 people per day (based on limits established in the Vermilion Cliffs National Monument Resource Management Plan) in Coyote Buttes North where the geologic feature known as the Wave is located. No changes to permit numbers for Coyote Buttes South or Buckskin/Paria Canyon are proposed. The BLM is seeking public input regarding resource concerns, access, recreation opportunities, etc., that would be relevant to the analysis.
Scoping meetings will be held at the following locations: • June 4, 2019: 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the Kanab Middle School, 690 S. Cowboy Way, Kanab, Utah. • June 5, 2019: 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the Courtyard by Marriott Page at Lake Powell, 600 Clubhouse Drive, Page, Arizona. • June 6, 2019: 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the Dixie Convention Center, 1835 South Convention Center Drive, St. George, Utah. Documents relevant to this project will be posted on the BLM's ePlanning home page at: https://go.usa.gov/xmnHg
Please provide comments via email to: [email protected]. Please include “Paria Canyon–Vermilion Cliffs Comments” in the subject line. Comments may also be mailed to 345 East Riverside Drive, St. George, UT 84790 attention Brandon Boshell or sent by fax to (435) 688-3258.
Based upon the issues identified, the BLM will assess the appropriate level of environmental analysis and documentation. If you have questions about this project, please contact Brandon Boshell at (435) 688-3241 or [email protected].
A-1
APPENDIX B
Scoping Letter
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
APPENDIX C
Scoping Meeting Maps
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
APPENDIX D
Scoping Meeting Display Boards
D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
D-7 APPENDIX E
Comment Card
E-1
Proposed Change in Management of the Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs National Monument
COMMENT FORM
Please Print ______Organization (if applicable) Name Add to electronic mailing list? Yes No ______Email address: ______Address
Add to regular mailing list? Yes No
______City, State, Zip Withhold personal information* Yes No
COMMENT (use reverse side if you need additional space or attach additional sheets) Note: instead of submitting this written form, you may email your comment plus attachments to [email protected].
SEND COMMENTS BY June 21, 2019 TO: Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness Plan Amendment Attn: Brandon Boshell BLM Vermilion Cliffs National Monument 345 East Riverside Drive St George, UT 84790
OR EMAIL TO: [email protected]
*Comments - including names, street addresses, e-mail addresses, and phone numbers (if provided) of respondents - will be available for public review at the address above during regular business hours. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
E-2
Comment Continued:
Thank you for your comment!
To return via mail: Fold in thirds so address (below) is showing, add postage, tape fold, and mail. Please postmark by: June 21, 2019
84790 UT George, St
Drive Riverside East 345
Monument Natl. Cliffs Vermilion
BLM
Boshell Brandon
Attn:
Amendment Plan Management Resource
F-1