Final General Management Plan/ Environmental Impact Statement Colorado National Monument Mesa County, Colorado February 2005 This Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement describes and analyzes a proposed action and two alternatives for managing and using Colorado National Monument. The purpose of a general management plan (GMP) is to map out a clear vision for the direction of management of Colorado National Monument for the next 15–20 years. The GMP will provide comprehensive and integrated guidance for perpetuating natural systems, preserving cultural resources, providing opportunities for visitor enjoyment and understanding and the organizational mechanism, including partners, to accomplish the plan. The main issues addressed by this plan revolve around the rapid urbanization occurring around the monument, and how to manage the monument in the face of this change. Issues include managing ecosystems and cultural resources, vandalism and resource damages, the future of trails and trailheads, use conflicts on Rim Rock Drive, interagency information, education and outreach, and boundary adjustments. Alternative A: No Action. This alternative would continue existing management practices, resulting in current resource conditions and visitor opportunities and the logical progression of probable trends over time. It is required as a baseline against which the other alternatives can be compared. Without the guidance of a current general management plan, there would not be a clear focus for setting priorities. Management would continue to tend to be reactive to the crises of the moment rather than being proactive toward specific goals. Alternative B (Preferred). The concept of this alternative is to weave Colorado National Monument into the regional ecosystem on the northeastern edge of the Colorado Plateau by pursuing common stewardship goals among government agencies, tribes, educational institutions, and communities. While managed as a unit of the national park system for all Americans, the monument’s importance to and long relationship with the Grand Valley would be recognized as a foundation for our shared future. Emphasis would be placed on providing a spectrum of opportunities for people to connect to the monument’s important resources and values and to form a conservation ethic. To that end, the strategy would be to prepare for expected regional demand to enjoy the monument while protecting resources. By strengthening individual relationships, partnerships can be formed for the future protection of common regional and ecosystem goals in the Grand Valley. Alternative C. The concept of this alternative is for Colorado National Monument to be a benchmark of undisturbed ecosystems on the northeastern edge of the Uncompahgre Plateau. Land managing agencies would form partnerships to provide a full spectrum of resource conditions and visitor opportunities. Within the mosaic of public lands, the monument would be a distinct control plot focused on the preservation of its important resources and values. Colorado National Monument would be an outdoor laboratory for learning and developing a conservation ethic. Emphasis would be placed on its role in the national park system, while recognizing the importance of relationships with the residents of the Grand Valley. This document includes discussion of the potential environmental consequences of each alternative. Notable impacts of alternative A include ongoing adverse impacts to natural and cultural resources from visitor use and regional trends, beneficial impacts to visitors from the variety of visitor opportunities, adverse impacts to visitor safety and enjoyment from conflicts between users on Rim Rock Drive, adverse impacts to visitor information and education, overall beneficial impacts of the monument on neighboring lands and communities, and adverse impacts to the effectiveness of monument operations and volunteers from lack of planning. Notable impacts of alternative B include ongoing adverse impacts to natural and cultural resources from visitor use and regional trends, which could be increased by trail improvements but would be offset by mitigation, interagency cooperation, and partnerships; the greatest beneficial impacts to visitors from the variety of visitor opportunities, especially hikers and horseback riders; beneficial impacts to visitor safety and enjoyment by reducing conflicts between users on Rim Rock Drive; the most beneficial impacts to nonmotorized users of Rim Rock Drive; beneficial impacts to visitor information and education; overall beneficial impacts of the monument on neighboring lands and communities; and beneficial impacts to the effectiveness of monument operations and volunteers from a clear management plan, expanded partnerships, and greater interagency coordination. Notable impacts of alternative C include ongoing adverse impacts to natural and cultural resources from visitor use and regional trends, which would be offset by mitigation and interagency cooperation; beneficial impacts (greater than alternative A but less than alternative B) to visitors from the variety of visitor opportunities; beneficial impacts to visitor safety and enjoyment by reducing conflicts between users on Rim Rock Drive; the most beneficial impacts to motorized users on Rim Rock Drive; beneficial impacts to visitor information and education; overall beneficial impacts of the monument on neighboring lands and communities; and beneficial impacts to the effectiveness of monument operations and volunteers from a clear plan and greater interagency coordination. Alternative B was chosen as the preferred alternative because its emphasis on partnerships provides the greatest ability to leverage people and funds to protect archeology, historic resources, natural resources, and paleontological resources, while providing opportunities for recreation, enjoyment of Rim Rock Drive, and education and outreach and protecting public and employee safety, improving operational efficiency, and promoting understanding of the mission of the National Park Service. Please address comments to: Bruce Noble, Superintendent, Colorado National Monument, Fruita, Colorado, 81521- 0001. E- mail: [email protected] United States Department of the Interior National Park Service SUMMARY PURPOSE AND NEED FOR A ALTERNATIVES GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION The purpose of a general management This alternative would continue existing plan (GMP) is to map out a clear vision for management practices, resulting in current the direction of management of Colorado resource conditions and visitor National Monument for the next 15–20 opportunities and the logical progression years. The GMP will provide of probable trends over time. It is required comprehensive and integrated guidance as a baseline against which the other for perpetuating natural systems, alternatives can be compared. Without preserving cultural resources, providing the guidance of a current general opportunities for visitor enjoyment and management plan, there would not be a understanding and the organizational clear focus for setting priorities. mechanism, including partners, to Management would continue to tend to be accomplish the plan. reactive to the crisis of the moment rather than being proactive toward specific goals. MAJOR ISSUES AND Management zones do not apply to the OPPORTUNITIES “no action” alternative. Geologic SUMMARY: RAPID URBANIZATION processes, geologic features, ecological How do we manage the monument in systems, archeological resources, historic the face of change? resources, and the scenery would be managed to be undisturbed, but there are “Island in a sea of change” no cohesive goals or management zones to “Living on the edge” focus monitoring and management. • Managing ecosystems Rim Rock Drive would continue to have • Managing cultural resources multiple demands and continued conflicts • Identify ethnographic resources of use. Visitors would continue to have • Vandalism and resource damage opportunities for driving, bicycling on the • Scenic vistas, air quality, dark night roadway, viewing, hiking, horseback skies, natural soundscapes riding, climbing, picnicking, camping, and • Comprehensive inventory and backcountry camping. The visitor center monitoring exhibits and audiovisual programs would • Appropriate range of visitor be replaced. Personal interpretive opportunities programs and educational outreach would • Trails and trailheads remain very limited. Interagency • Use conflicts on Rim Rock Drive information would continue to be • Potential failure of Rim Rock Drive scattered. • Interagency information • Wilderness Existing facilities, including the visitor • Education and outreach center, campground, picnic areas, trails, • Staff and funding trailheads, entrance stations, and • Boundary adjustments maintenance area would be maintained. • Patrol of east side The monument would continue to use • Ethnographic resources housing at Saddlehorn for required NPS • Cooperative planning and occupants and administrative space, and management housing would be removed from the east i Summary entrance. Other than minor survey • Adverse moderate impacts to the corrections, no boundary adjustments effectiveness of monument operations would be sought. Staff would remain at 13 and volunteers over time from the lack to 15 employees, supplemented by of a clear plan and management zones numerous volunteers. to address future changes facing the monument. Important impacts of continuing the existing