Draft National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior General Management Plan and Sequoia and Kings Canyon Comprehensive River Management Plan / National Parks Middle and South Forks of the Environmental Impact Statement Kings River and North Fork of the Kern River Tulare and Fresno Counties California Volume 1: Purpose of and Need for Action / The Alternatives / Index Page intentionally left blank SEQUOIA AND KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARKS and MIDDLE AND SOUTH FORKS OF THE KINGS RIVER AND NORTH FORK OF THE KERN RIVER Tulare and Fresno Counties • California DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AND COMPREHENSIVE RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Volume 1: Purpose of and Need for Action / The Alternatives / Index This document presents five alternatives that are being considered for the management and use of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks over the next 15–20 years. The purpose of the Draft General Management Plan is to establish a vision for what Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks should be, including desired future conditions for natural and cultural resources, as well as for visitor experiences. The no-action alternative would continue current management direction, and it is the baseline for comparing the other alternatives (it was originally alternative B when the alternatives were first presented to the public in the winter of 2000). The preferred alternative is the National Park Service’s proposed action, and it would accommodate sustainable growth and visitor enjoyment, protect ecosystem diversity, and preserve basic character while adapting to changing user groups. Alternative A would emphasize natural ecosystems and biodiversity, with reduced use and development; alternative C would preserve the parks’ traditional character and retain the feel of yesteryear, with guided growth; and alternative D would preserve the basic character and adapt to changing user groups. The preferred alternative was developed by combining elements of other alternatives through a process known as “Choosing by Advantages.” It would bring additional benefits to the parks, and it would be the most cost-effective. This document also includes a comprehensive river management plan for the portions of the Middle and South Forks of the Kings River and the North Fork of the Kern River, which have been designated by Congress as components of the national wild and scenic rivers system. The purpose of the river management plan is to provide direction and overall guid ance on the management of lands and uses within the river corridors. The environmental impact statement, which has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, relates to both the general management plan and the comprehensive river management plan. The impacts of the alterna tives on natural and cultural resources, wild and scenic rivers, backcountry / wilderness, transportation, visitor experiences, private land and special use permits within the parks, park management and operations, and the socioeconomic environment are assessed. The environmentally preferred alternative is also identified. This Draft General Management Plan and Comprehensive River Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement is presented in two volumes. The first volume includes the purpose of and need for action, plus the alternatives being consid ered and comparative tables of the alternatives and the impacts. The second volume includes the description of the affected environment, the environmental consequences, consultation and coordination, and the appendixes. For further information about this document contact: Park GMP Coordinator NPS GMP Team Leader Dr. David Graber, Senior Scientist Susan Spain, Landscape Architect Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks National Park Service – DSC 47050 Generals Highway 12795 W. Alameda Parkway Three Rivers, California 93271-9651 Denver, Colorado 80225-0287 (559) 565-3173 (303) 969-2280 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Comments must be received no later than 90 days after the publication of the notice of availability in the Federal Register. It is the National Park Service’s practice to make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available for public review. Individual respondents may request that their name and/or address be withheld from the public record, if it is stated prominently at the beginning of the comment. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be available for public inspection in their entirety. Anonymous comments may not be accepted. United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service Summary PURPOSE OF AND NEED ment of the national parks. The following are among the reasons why the plans are needed: FOR THE PLANS • Lack of a Comprehensive River Management This document presents five alternatives that are Plan — Boundaries must be established for being considered for the management and use of the river corridors, and appropriate classifi Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks over cations must be identified for each segment. the next 15–20 years. The purpose of the Draft For rivers that are eligible for the wild and General Management Plan is to provide scenic rivers system, no actions may be taken management direction to establish and achieve a that could adversely affect the values that vision for what Sequoia and Kings Canyon qualify them for inclusion in the system. National Parks should be, including desired • An Outdated Master Plan — The 1971 future conditions for natural and cultural Master Plan for Sequoia and Kings Canyon resources, as well as for visitor experiences. National Parks does not meet the require ments of a general management plan, and it This document also includes a comprehensive was developed without public involvement. river management plan for the portions of the Some actions are no longer appropriate. Middle and South Forks of the Kings River and the North Fork of the Kern River, which have • Management of Cultural Resources — Since been designated by Congress as components of the 1971 Master Plan was completed, a the national wild and scenic rivers system. The number of historic structures, districts, and purpose of the river management plan is to landscapes have been identified and inven provide direction and overall guidance on the toried. The general management plan must management of lands and uses within the river decide what should be done to properly care corridors. In accordance with the legislation, no for a cultural resource, and how cultural development or use of park lands that is incon resources fit into the overall scheme of park sistent with wild and scenic river designation management. While the National Park Ser may be undertaken. vice strives to preserve and protect cultural resources whenever possible, funding and The environmental impact statement, which has staffing are insufficient to preserve and been prepared in accordance with the National protect all cultural resources in the parks. Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), relates to • Unresolved Issues for Specific Developed both the general management plan and the Areas — Previous proposals may no longer comprehensive river management plan. The be desirable. For example, a 1980 proposal to impacts of the alternatives on natural and develop a 1,700-car parking garage at cultural resources, wild and scenic rivers, Wolverton to accommodate visitors to Giant wilderness, transportation, visitor experiences, Forest needs to be reexamined. private inholdings and special use permits within the parks, park management and operations, and • Special Use Permits on Public Land in the socioeconomic environment are assessed. Mineral King — In the Mineral King area of The environmentally preferred alternative is also Sequoia National Park private cabins are identified. allowed on public land through special use permits dating from 1978. While these per mits were to last only for the life of the Issues, Concerns, and Problems original permittee, some permittees or their families would like to continue the use of The need for the plans is to address issues, their cabins. concerns, and problems related to the manage iii SUMMARY • The Changing Context of the Parks in the are made that will not only protect park re­ Regional Ecosystem — Sequoia and Kings sources and values but also contribute to the Canyon National Parks were originally set protection and health of the ecosystem. aside to protect the sequoia groves. Adjacent lands possessing national park character have been added to the parks over the years. Yet THE ALTERNATIVES nearby land uses continue to affect park ecosystems. Management Prescriptions The Context for the Plans Management prescriptions are the heart of the general management plan. They are guidelines The alternatives being considered present a for achieving desired future conditions for both management vision and direction for Sequoia resources and visitor experiences, and they are and Kings Canyon National Parks, but some based on public ideas presented in the scoping considered actions could require legislative phases of this planning effort. action by Congress. For example, the desig­ nation of additional wild and scenic rivers would Management prescriptions are applied to geo­ require legislation. graphic areas, which are referred to as zones. The size of each zone varies by alternative. The context is also affected by