ÿþEnvironmental Assessment/Assessment of Effect May 2003 North Rim Administration Building Grand Canyon National Park " Arizona Environmental Assessment/Assessment of Effect North Rim Administration Building Grand Canyon National Park " Arizona Summary Grand Canyon National Park proposes to construct a new administration building on the North Rim. The original North Rim Headquarters building was destroyed by fire in 1982 and it was subsequently replaced with the current administration building. The current building is a temporary premanufactured structure installed in 1982. The proposal to remove the current building and replace it with a new building is needed in part to address inadequacies of the existing building. This Environmental Assessment evaluates three alternatives for addressing the purpose and need for action, including a no action alternative and two action alternatives. Both action alternatives include removal of the existing building and construction of a new building on essentially the same location. Both action alternatives include a similar building design and layout and would use the same staging areas and temporary office location during construction. The primary difference between the action alternatives is vehicular access to the building and parking. Alternative B, the agency s preferred alternative, would continue to use the same entrance road and parking area as is currently used, but would modify the existing parking to address concerns with traffic flow, parking capacity and to accommodate the design of the new building. Alternative C would include the construction of a new parking area and a new access road. Neither action alternative would have measurable impacts to air quality, soundscape, floodplains and wetlands, environmental justice, prime and unique farmland, or the socioeconomic environment. Both action alternatives would result in negligible to minor adverse impacts to soils and water, minor to moderate long-term beneficial impacts to park operations and minor to moderate long-term beneficial impacts to visitor experience. Alternative B would result in moderate long-term beneficial impacts to cultural resources, negligible to minor short-term adverse impacts to general wildlife populations, negligible to minor short-term adverse impacts to special status species, and minor to moderate long-term beneficial impacts to visitor experience. No trees would need to be removed for implementation of Alternative B. Alternative C would result in minor long-term adverse impacts to cultural resources, minor short-term adverse impacts to general wildlife populations and negligible to minor adverse impacts to special status species. Approximately 20  25 ponderosa pine trees greater than six inches diameter at breast height 9dbh) would be removed for implementation of Alternative C. Public Comment This environmental assessment will be on public review for 30 days. If you wish to comment on the environmental assessment, you may mail comments to the name and address below, no later than June 27, 2003. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Please Address Comments to: Joseph F. Alston, Superintendent Attention: Sara White, Compliance Officer Grand Canyon National Park P.O. Box 129 1 Village Loop Grand Canyon, Arizona 86023 United States Department of the Interior " National Park Service " Grand Canyon National Park Contents Page Chapter 1 - Project Scope 1 Introduction 1 Purpose and Need for Action 1 Management and Planning History 3 Issues and Impact Topics 5 Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Analysis 6 Additional NEPA Analysis 9 Chapter 2  Alternatives 10 Introduction 10 Alternative Development 10 Alternative Description 11 Alternatives Considered and Dismissed from Detailed Study 17 Identification of Environmentally Preferred Alternative 18 Mitigation Measures 19 Alternatives and Project Objectives 23 Chapter 3  Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 29 Introduction 29 Methodology 29 Natural Resources 32 Soils and Water 32 Vegetation 35 Wildlife 39 Cultural Resources 49 Historic 49 Cultural Landscapes 52 Visitor Experience 57 Park Operations 60 Chapter 4  List of Preparers 63 Chapter 5  Consultation with Others 64 Selected References 66 Appendices A  General Management Plan Excerpts 72 B  Compliance Summary 75 C1  North Rim Administration Building Site Plan  Existing Conditions 76 C2  Alternative B (Preferred Alternative)  Proposed Site Plan 77 C3  Alternative C (New Access Road)  Proposed Site Plan 78 C4  North Rim Administration Building  Schematic Design 79 D  Wildlife Species Descriptions 80 E  North Rim Exotic Plants 85 F  National Register Nomination  North Rim Headquarters Historic District 87 G  Foreseeable Future Actions 89 List of Tables Page Table 1. Summary of Alternative Components 24 Table 2. Comparison of Impacts by Alternative. 25 Table 3. Wildlife Species of Interest on the North Rim. 40 Table 4. Special Status Species of the North Rim 41 List of Figures Page Figure 1. Project Vicinity 2 Figure 2. North Rim Developed Area and Foreseeable Future Actions 12 Figure 3. Bright Angel Watershed Subunit 13 Figure 4. Bright Angel Peninsula and Existing Developed Areas 14 Figure 5. Existing North Rim Administration Building (front) 15 Figure 6. Existing North Rim Administration Building (back) 15 Figure 7. Original Headquarters Building 50 Figure 8. Historic Districts on the North Rim 51 Chapter 1  Project Scope INTRODUCTION The purpose of this document is to disclose the expected effects to the human environment of various components of the proposed North Rim administration building. The human environment is defined as the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment. The North Rim administration building is located on the North Rim district of Grand Canyon National Park, in Coconino County, Arizona (Figure 1). The proposal includes the removal of the existing administration building, a trailer, and the construction of a new administration building in the same location. The proposal also includes reconfiguration of the existing parking area. The proposal would result in approximately 1 acre of ground disturbance and is located within the Bright Angel watershed. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION The purpose of the proposal is to provide for enhanced visitor services on the North Rim through the improvement of backcountry permitting and integral administrative functions that are consistent with the 1995 Grand Canyon General Management Plan (GMP). The project will be consistent with NPS Management Policies (2001), all subsequent NPS Director s Orders, and all other applicable laws and regulations. The GMP (1995) identifies that the existing administrative building will be removed. This proposal consists of the removal and subsequent replacement of the existing administrative building. The proposal is needed to address the following management concerns: " The current building is not of adequate size to accommodate the increased need for administrative services for the North Rim Unit. " The current building is not adequately built to withstand the long-term impacts of seasonal winter weather. " The current building is not compatible with the surrounding North Rim Headquarters Historic District. " Vehicle conflicts between employees and visitors occur within the nearby residential areas and within the existing parking area. The existing level of parking is not adequate to accommodate current and projected future use in this area. Objectives of the Action " The new building should blend into the historic character of the surrounding Historic District. The Grand Canyon National Park Architectural Character Guidelines (1994) and the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Weeks 1995), will be used as guidelines. One rehabilitation standard listed in the Secretary s Standards applicable to this project includes:  New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize a property. The new work shall be " differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale, and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. " The new building should have appropriate roof slope and be designed to shed snow away from entrances and parking areas. " The new building layout and associated site work should minimize the amount of new ground disturbance and tree removal to maintain the existing character of the area as much as possible. MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING HISTORY National Park Service Management Policies (2001) is the guiding document for management of all national parks within the national park system. It is the basic Service-wide policy document of the National Park Service that supercedes the 1988 edition. It is the highest of three levels of guidance documents in the NPS Directives System. As stated in the introduction,  It (NPS Directives System) is designed to provide NPS management and staff with clear and continuously updated information on NPS policy and required and/or recommended actions, as well as any other information that will help them manage parks and programs effectively. Among direction on all aspects of park management, these Management Policies set forth direction for each unit of the national park system to maintain an up-to-date General Management Plan. Chapter 9 Park Facilities is applicable to this project. Grand Canyon National Park is currently operating under the direction of the 1995 General Management Plan (GMP). This plan provides guidance for resource management, visitor use, and general development for a period of 10 to 15 years. The primary purpose of the Plan is to provide a foundation from which to protect park resources while providing for meaningful visitor experiences. The North Rim administration building is part of a development zone, which prescribes the area to provide and maintain facilities for serving park managers and visitors. A summary of the GMP as it applies to this project is provided in Appendix A. For the North Rim, this includes Bright Angel Point and Walhalla Plateau. Specifically on pages 47-49, NPS management support functions for the North Rim are discussed and proposed changes to all area functions are mapped. A new backcountry office and minor interpretive office space is listed as a service to be included at a new CC Hill orientation center and at Jacob Lake. The removal of the existing administration and backcountry permit office (the trailer) is included, but replacement of the building is not specifically mentioned. The plan for new services at CC Hill has not been developed to date. It is likely that once the CC Hill area is fully analyzed, and if backcountry permitting is included at that site, the backcountry permitting function of the proposed administrative building will be moved to the new site, leaving this proposed building as administrative use only. A fire destroyed the original administrative building in 1982 and it was subsequently replaced by the current visitor services/administrative building. The current building is a temporary pre-manufactured structure installed in 1982. It has deteriorated from the effects of heavy snows and snowmelt for which the structure was not designed. The building is also not of sufficient size to fully accommodate the administrative needs of the North Rim Unit. The existing parking area configuration is not conducive to the increased volume of traffic that has occurred within the Park and has created parking congestion within an otherwise primarily residential area within the Park. An interdisciplinary team developed and evaluated several building floor plans and site layouts during a Value Analysis Study in October 1999. A value analysis is a systematic approach of evaluating alternatives in context with the value of identified issues, concerns, and functions. The use of value analysis and the subsequent choosing by advantages protocol when evaluating the merits of large projects is a National Park Service mandate. Preliminary scoping to identify concerns of additional Park Service specialists with the proposal occurred in December 1999. A week-long meeting with NPS staff and the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was held in August 2000 to discuss this and other North Rim project proposals. The proposals were reviewed by the park s standing interdisciplinary team in March and April 2002. The building access and parking portion of the proposal was revisited by park management and team members during November  December 2002, and an on-site interdisciplinary team evaluated the project in August 2002. An internal review of a preliminary draft of the Environmental Assessment was conducted in May  June 2001 and an internal review of the draft Environmental Assessment was conducted in March 2003. A public scoping letter, which included several North Rim projects including the administration building was submitted to a 300-person Grand Canyon National Park mailing list on December 8, 2000, and included eight of the nine affiliated tribes who have expressed interest in projects on the North Rim. This letter was also posted on the park s website. The purpose of the scoping letter was to describe the proposed action to any interested/affected parties and solicit comments from those who may have issues with the proposed action(s). The north rim projects public scoping was a topic of discussion at the monthly GMP community meeting held at the park on January 11, 2001. A notification and short article on north rim project proposals was published in the Williams/Grand Canyon newspaper, in the January 3-9, 2001 edition. Seven responses were received. These included the National Tour Association who expressed their support for this project; Five County Association of Governments who expressed support for improvements in visitor facilities and recommended further information-sharing; U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service who provided a species list; Zuni Heritage and Historic Preservation Office who provided no specific comment; Western Office of the National Trust for Historic Preservation who requested information of historic resources; and the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians who expressed their strong interest in participation in planning for North Rim projects as early as possible and provided additional comments pertinent to a visitor center. NPS staff met with personnel from USFWS and AGFD on December 13, 2000 to discuss this project proposal and other future proposals. NPS staff met with USFWS several times between March and June 2002 to discuss this project proposal in conjunction with a batch consultation for several construction projects, including the North Rim administration building, throughout the Park. Concurrence on the batch consultation was received from USFWS on 9 July 2002 and indicated that the projects may affect but are not likely to adversely affect the Mexican spotted owl and the California condor. In addition to the August 2000 discussions with SHPO, this project was discussed with the SHPO on January 22, 2001and again at a meeting on October 16, 2002 and February 20, 2003. The proposed actions analyzed in this EA and their potential cumulative effects have been discussed at several Grand Canyon National Park Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) meetings. Project specifics and cumulative impact discussions were discussed at IDT meetings on August 20, 2002, September 10, 2002, and November 12, 2002. Discussions with the IDT were held in part to determine the level of analysis needed, cumulative impact methodology and adequacy of cumulative impact information. This EA incorporates by reference and tiers to the General Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement (July 1995). ISSUES AND IMPACT TOPICS Various agencies have been contacted and consulted as part of this environmental analysis. Appropriate federal, state, and local agencies have been contacted for input and review (see Chapter 5 for a list of persons contacted). National Park Service specialists, with input from federal, state, and local agencies identified issues and concerns (i.e. impact topics) affecting this project. After public scoping, issues and concerns were distilled into distinct impact topics to facilitate the analysis of environmental consequences, which allows for a standardized comparison between alternatives based on the most relevant information. An issue is an effect on a physical, biological, social, or economic resource. The predicted effects of an activity create the issue. Issues may come from the public, from within an agency or department, or from another agency (Freeman and Jenson 1998). For this project, the interdisciplinary team identified issues with various proposed alternatives. Although a few responses to the scoping letter were received from the public, no additional significant issues came forward through public scoping or scoping with other agencies. Once issues were identified, they were used to help formulate alternatives and mitigation measures. Impact topics were then selected for detailed analysis based on substantive issues, environmental statutes, regulations, executive orders, and NPS Management Policies (2001). A summary of some of these compliance-related laws and regulations is provided in Appendix B. A summary of the impact topics and rationale for selection/dismissal are given below. Relevant Impact Topics Soils and Water - Proposed activities would result in new ground disturbance and have the potential to impact the soil and water resource. This topic will be discussed in Chapter 3. Vegetation - Proposed construction and trenching would involve disturbance of vegetative communities in a small area and some tree removal would be necessary for one action alternative. There is the potential to increase disturbance to adjacent biotic communities via the spread of exotic vegetation and noxious weeds. This topic will be discussed in Chapter 3. Wildlife and Special Status Species  Proposed activities would involve some disturbance to vegetative communities and thus disturbance of wildlife habitat. Habitat modification as well as noise and other activities associated with project implementation have the potential to impact wildlife populations. In response to a request for a list of federally listed species in the project area, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in a letter dated December 14, 2000, (USFWS Reference #2-21-92-I-204), provided a list of threatened, endangered and proposed species that have the potential to occur in Coconino County. The Arizona Game and Fish Department provided a list of special status species in a letter dated January 24, 2000. Representatives from both agencies also met to discuss this and other Park projects in December 2000, and also discussed multiple North Rim proposed projects during the preparation of the Parkwide Construction Program Batch Biological Assessment during March  June 2002 (NPS 2002). The information provided was used to develop a list of species of concern for this project. Impacts to these species and general wildlife populations are discussed in Chapter 3. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires all federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency does not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or critical habitats. Chapter 3 will also include determinations of potential effects of project implementation on federally listed species. Cultural Resources (Historic Resources and Cultural Landscapes)  The 1966 National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, NEPA, the 1916 NPS Organic Act, the 2001 NPS Management Policies and other NPS guidelines require consideration of impacts on cultural resources. Project undertakings have the potential to affect archaeological resources, sites of special ethnographic significance to American Indians, buildings and structures contributing to the National Register significance of the North Rim Inn and Campground Historic District, the Grand Lodge National Landmark District and the North Rim Headquarters Historic District, as well as other elements that contribute to the historic cultural landscape at the North Rim. Therefore, this topic will be discussed in Chapter 3. Park Operations  Park operations such as maintenance of buildings, roads and grounds would be affected to some degree by the action alternatives. This topic will be discussed in Chapter 3. Visitor Experience  The 1916 NPS Organic Act and the 2001 NPS Management Policies direct national parks to provide for public enjoyment. The North Rim provides a low-key atmosphere where visitors can enjoy the serene environment and sweeping canyon views in a relaxed, uncrowded setting. Visitors could be affected by construction traffic, increased noise, and disruptions in traffic flow. Therefore, this topic will be analyzed in this document. This topic will be discussed in Chapter 3. Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Analysis Air Quality - Clean, clear air is essential to preserve the resources in Grand Canyon National Park, as well as for visitors to appreciate those resources. Grand Canyon National Park is a federally mandated Class I area under the Clean Air Act. As such, air in the Park receives the most stringent protection against increases in air pollution and in further degradation of air quality related values. The Act then sets a further goal of natural visibility conditions, free of human-caused haze. Air quality in the Park is generally quite good. Pollution levels monitored in the Park fall below the levels established by the Environmental Protection Agency to protect human health and welfare. However, the ability to see through the air (visibility) is usually well below natural levels because of air pollution. Most of this pollution originates far outside the Park s boundaries, and arrives in the Park as a well-mixed regional haze, rather than as distinct plumes. Section 118 of the Clean Air Act requires all federal facilities to comply with existing federal, state, and local air pollution control laws and regulations. The park s air quality specialist has determined that this project, due to its limited scope, would not require consultation with the State of Arizona regarding air quality. However, because there is some ground disturbance involved, there is a possibility of raising fugitive dust during project implementation or from disturbed areas afterwards. After project completion, building and paving footprints would address dust there. Revegetation of disturbed areas if needed, after work is complete, would provide long-term dust control. Mulch and the plants themselves would stabilize the soil surface and reduce wind speed/shear against the ground surface. Trenching and other minor on-site work would increase dust and combustion-related emissions. Dust raised during ground disturbance would be limited by the size of the project and the equipment used. By clearly marking boundaries of the project area, unnecessary soil disturbance, and consequent dust generation, would be avoided. Water sprinkling can control fugitive dust emissions from light traffic in the project area. Construction equipment itself can adversely affect air quality by exhaust emissions. Minimizing the extent to which construction equipment idles would help to reduce this effect. Minimizing idling would also help to reduce noise impacts during construction as well. The proposed project components occur within a development zone. Indirect air quality impacts from routine daily vehicle emissions from visitors, employees and official business would be unchanged. Therefore, local air quality may be temporarily degraded by dust generated from construction activities under the action alternatives, and emissions from construction equipment. This degradation would result in an overall negligible impact to air quality, and would last only as long as renovation activities occurred. Impacts to overall park air quality or regional air quality are not expected. Likewise, impacts from foreseeable future projects in the area would be negligible and would be restricted to the period of construction. Cumulative impacts would be local, short-term and negligible. Therefore, air quality was dismissed from further analysis. Soundscape - The NPS is mandated by Director s Order 47 to articulate the Park Service s operational policies that would require, to the fullest extent practicable, the protection, maintenance, or restoration of the natural soundscape resource in a condition unimpaired by inappropriate or excessive noise sources. Natural sounds are intrinsic elements of the environment that are often associated with parks and park purposes. They are inherent components of  the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life protected by the NPS Organic Act. They are vital to the natural functioning of many parks and may provide valuable indicators of the health of various ecosystems. Intrusive sounds are of concern to the NPS because they sometimes impede the Service s ability to accomplish its mission. Proposed project components would generate some construction-related noise in the development zone above ambient conditions. Noise sources include vehicles, power tools and equipment, and additional people in the area conducting the work. To protect the Park soundscape during project implementation, noise production must occur outside the curfew established for overflights, as listed in the mitigation measures developed for this project. Noise impacts from this project would only last the duration of the construction. After construction is completed, any noise level impacts would return to their natural condition. All construction would occur during daylight hours when roads and the associated traffic already affect the project area. Any additional traffic would only be temporary and would negligibly affect the areas in the short-term. Therefore, this project would have no measurable effects on soundscape. Similarly, the effects of past, present and foreseeable future actions on the soundscape would be short-term and would not measurably affect the soundscape. The potential effects of noise on visitor experience and special status species are addressed under those impact topics. Therefore, soundscape was dismissed from further analysis. Floodplains and Wetlands - Executive Order 11988 (Floodplains) and Executive Order 11990 (Wetlands), which require federal agencies to examine the potential impacts of actions on floodplains and wetlands, were reviewed for applicability to this project. Because the project is not in or near a floodplain or wetland and would not affect this resource, floodplains and wetlands were dismissed from further analysis. Archeological and Ethnographic Resources - Limited archaeological evidence suggests that people have used and/or inhabited the Grand Canyon area for nearly 11,000 years. At the present time, approximately 4000 sites have been recorded within the park boundaries, with only 3% of GRCA lands surveyed. The settlement history for the North and South Rims reflects considerable occupation during AD 1050 to AD 1150, when intensive farming occurred during the summer for approximately 1000 years. Ethnographic resources are defined by the NPS as any  site, structure, object, landscape, or natural resource feature assigned traditional, legendary, subsistence, or other significance in the cultural system of a group traditionally associated with it (Cultural Resource Management Guidelines [DO-28:191]). The lands of Grand Canyon National Park are traditionally affiliated with nine American Indian groups: Havasupai, Hopi, Hualapai, Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, Navajo, Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, White Mountain Apache, San Juan Southern Paiute, and Pueblo of Zuni. Native American use of the North Rim is known in general terms, both from ethnographic accounts and from on-going consultation with the nine affiliated tribes of Grand Canyon. Consultation with American Indians is required for compliance with a variety of laws and other legal entities, such as presidential executive orders, proclamations, and memoranda; federal regulations; and agency management policies and directives. The Grand Canyon has long been of importance to native cultures and figures prominently in the origin/religious beliefs and ceremonial practices of many groups. For example, traditional Hopi and Zuni beliefs hold the Grand Canyon as the sacred place from which their ancestors emerged to the present world (GMP 1995). Although ethnographic resources significant to Native Americans may be present in the vicinity of Bright Angel Peninsula, no ethnographic resources are known to exist within the area proposed for development (GMP 1995). A scoping letter describing this project was sent to all interested tribes in November 2000 and no ethnographic resources in the project area were identified. Copies of this EA/AEF will be forwarded to each affiliated tribe for review and comment. If the tribes subsequently identify the presence of additional ethnographic resources within the project area, appropriate mitigation measures would be undertaken in consultation with the tribes. The location of any ethnographic sites would not be made public. Although the North Rim encompasses some of the most important archeological sites in the park, there are only three known archeological sites on the Bright Angel Peninsula, none of which is within or near the boundaries of the administration building (Euler 1975). This document also references an earlier archaeological survey done in the project vicinity in preparation for prescribed burning (Haines, Horn-Wilson, Leatherbury 2000). The project area has been previously disturbed and encompasses the footprint of the existing building. All mitigation guidelines relative to the protection of cultural resources will be followed during project implementation. During the consideration of this topic, it was determined that impacts to archeological and ethnographic resources would not occur during this project and that archeological or ethnographic resources would not influence the choice of alternatives. For these reasons, this project is expected to have no impact on archeological or ethnographic resources and has been dismissed from detailed analysis. Environmental Justice  Executive Order 12898 requires consideration of impacts to minority and low-income populations to ensure that these populations do not receive a disproportionately high number of adverse or human health impacts. This issue was dismissed from further analysis for this project because each alternative would affect everyone equally and would not disproportionately impact minority or low-income populations. Prime and Unique Farmland  The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider adverse effects to prime and unique farmlands that would result in conversion of these lands to non-agricultural uses. Prime or unique farmland is defined as soil that particularly produces general crops as common foods, forage, fiber, and oil seed; unique farmland produces specialty crops such as fruits, vegetables and nuts. This proposed project locations and surrounding lands have been evaluated by appropriate park technical area specialists and by specialists from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Based on their observations, the project area is not considered prime or unique farmland (Camp, NRCS, pers. comm. 2002). Therefore, this topic was dismissed from further analysis. Socioeconomic Environment  Socioeconomic values consist of local and regional businesses and residents, the local and regional economy and park concessions. The local economy and most business of the communities surrounding the park are based on construction, recreation, transportation, tourist sales, services, and educational research; the regional economy is strongly influenced by tourist activity. The GMP EIS discussed the socioeconomic environment and impacts extensively. There may be shortterm benefits to the local and regional economy resulting from construction-related expenditures and employment. Local and regional businesses would be negligibly affected in the longterm. Therefore, impacts, both adverse and beneficial, would be negligible and thus socioeconomic values were dismissed from further analysis. ADDITIONAL NEPA ANALYSIS The alternatives include all reasonably foreseeable connected actions. Environmental effects estimated for this project consider the site-specific effects of all foreseeable actions and mitigation measures. Monitoring during and following implementation of the project would occur to verify effectiveness of mitigation measures and predictions of impact. This EA will guide any subsequent project implementation. If new information or unforeseen and unanalyzed actions become necessary in the future, additional site-specific environmental analysis will be conducted before implementation. Chapter 2  Alternatives INTRODUCTION The NPS has adopted the concept of sustainable design as a guiding principle of facility planning and development. The objectives of sustainability are to design park facilities to minimize adverse effects on natural and cultural values, to reflect their environmental setting, and to maintain and encourage biodiversity; to construct and retrofit facilities using energy-efficient materials and building techniques; to operate and maintain facilities to promote their sustainability; and to illustrate and promote conservation principles and practices through sustainable design and ecologically sensitive use. Essentially, sustainability is living within the environment with the least impact on the environment. The action alternatives subscribe to and support the practice of sustainable planning, design, and human use of the North Rim developed area with its associated public and administrative facilities. This document analyzes the No-Action Alternative and two action alternatives. Analysis of the No-Action Alternative is required under NEPA (40 CFR 1502.14(d)). It provides a baseline for assessing the potential impacts of the Proposed Action and the other action alternatives. In developing alternatives for this project some actions were considered and subsequently dismissed. A description of alternatives considered but dismissed from detailed study is included in this chapter. A summary table comparing alternative components is also presented at the end of this chapter. The preferred alternative is based on preliminary designs and best information available at the time of this writing. Specific distances, areas, and layouts used to describe the alternative are only estimates and could change during final site design. If changes during final site design were not consistent with the intent and effects of the selected alternative, then additional compliance would be needed as appropriate. ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT Several design alternatives were initially developed to address the purpose and need for action during August  September 1999. Some of the initial proposals regarding the size of the building and the specific building design were dropped from further analysis, as described in the next section. A Value Analysis was conducted in October 1999 using an interdisciplinary team of NPS specialists. Four alternative building/parking area/access road configurations were ultimately brought forward by NPS staff to address the purpose and need for action. These alternatives (Alternatives A  D) were then analyzed as a part of the Value Analysis exercise to weigh the merits of each alternative against the cost, using Choosing by Advantages protocol. Alternative D was the alternative that received the highest score during the VA and is the alternative identified in this document as Alternative C  New Access Road. From the public scoping activities, as fully described in the Management History section in Chapter 1, five letters were received. The Park Service performed a content analysis on this information, information gained from internal scoping, and information gained from scoping with other agencies. From this effort, the Park Service did not identify any additional significant issues to be analyzed. Subsequent discussions of the results of the Choosing by Advantages exercise for the access road and parking with park management and NPS staff resulted in the development of an additional alternative to address the purpose and need for action. This alternative is described later in this Chapter as Alternative B and is the agency s preferred alternative. ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION Alternatives are described below. Table 2 summarizes the primary components of each alternative and Table 3 summarizes the expected impacts from implementation of the alternatives. Alternative A  No Action. This alternative does not meet the purpose and need for the project, but provides a basis for comparison with the action alternatives. Alternative A would maintain the existing conditions at the North Rim (Figure 2). A developed zone for the North Rim has been identified in the 1995 GMP and is used to guide management actions. This developed zone, which primarily includes Bright Angel peninsula but also encompasses the North Rim Entrance Road and roads out to the Walhalla Plateau comprises approximately 1,127 acres within the Bright Angel watershed subunit, or approximately 6% of the subunit. Approximately 234 acres of this, or 21%, is disturbed by past activities and developments (Figure 3). Existing developments include roads, trails, parking areas, buildings, and utilities (Figure 3 and Figure 4). The North Rim receives most of its visitation between May and October, when facilities at the North Rim are open. Visitation peaks in the summer months of June and July and is very limited in winter when snow blocks the road. Park staff is present at the North Rim throughout the year, with limited staffing in the winter, and perform general maintenance functions. This alternative would not change the existing situation (Appendix C1 and Figures 5 and 6). The existing 1,440 square foot visitor services/administrative building would not be removed and a new building would not be constructed. The services provided to the public would remain the same. The existing building would continue to be incompatible with the Historic District. The existing building would likely continue to incur high maintenance costs and would not fully address the increasing need for improved administrative services. The parking area and access to the building would remain the same. Employees, residents and visitors would continue to share the same access into the area and would share the existing 13 car parking area in front of the building. The no action alternative provides a basis for comparing the management direction and environmental consequences of the other action alternatives. If the no action alternative were selected, NPS would respond to future needs related to this building without major actions or changes in course. ITEMS APPLICABLE TO BOTH ACTION ALTERNATIVES B AND C: Building Design The current administrative building would be demolished and a new building would be constructed. For each alternative, the new building would support the North Rim backcountry permit system, visitor contact services, public restroom and administrative offices. The building and parking area would comply with accessibility (ADA) standards. The building would be of the same size (approximately 2,467 square feet) and of essentially the same design under either Alternative B or Alternative C. The proposed design (Appendix C3) would include a covered deck or porch, a metal roof with a steep roof slope and long roof overhang and board and batten siding. Figure 2. North Rim Developed Area on Bright Angel Peninsula, showing existing development and foreseeable future projects. Figure 3. Bright Angel Watershed Subunit and the North Rim Developed Area. Figure 4. The developed area of the North Rim on Bright Angel Peninsula. Figure 5. Existing administration building (2001) Figure 6. Area behind the existing administration building (2001) Temporary Office Before the current building is demolished, administrative offices and all associated functions will be temporarily relocated to trailers behind the existing bunkhouse (Appendix C1). This site has been previously disturbed and is void of vegetation. No new ground disturbance would be required for positioning of these trailers. Park staff will ensure that the temporary operation is consistent with all applicable laws and regulations and meets the needs of park operations and of the public until the new facility is complete. Staging Area Minor secondary staging would occur within the existing parking lot of the administration building. The primary staging area would be at Lindbergh Hill, approximately 5 miles north of the North Rim developed area along Highway 67. Lindbergh Hill is a large, disturbed area that is used for fire camps. It has electrical utilities on site, and no removal of vegetation would be required. Following construction, the site would be returned to pre-construction conditions. Revegetation Revegetation of areas disturbed during construction would occur. These efforts would use site-adapted native species, and would be done in accordance with the Salvage and Revegetation plan developed for the site, as described in the Mitigation Measures section of this document at the end of Chapter 2. These efforts would not disturb new ground, but would revegetate (grass seeding, shrub and tree planting) areas disturbed during construction and provide landscaping for the building. Some equipment may be necessary to do this and may include augers, small backhoes and handtools. These project components are analyzed as part of the actions described under both Alternatives B and C. Mitigation measures developed for action alternatives would also apply to these components, and are listed in the Mitigation Measures section of this Chapter. Alternative B  Preferred Alternative. This alternative is shown in Appendix C2 and summarized in Table 1, and includes those items applicable to both action alternatives as described above. Alternative B would locate the new building in essentially the same location as the existing building. Access to the building would not change and visitors would continue to use the same entrance road and parking area as they do currently. The existing parking area would be somewhat modified to accommodate the new building design and layout and to address problems with traffic flow and vehicle/pedestrian safety concerns, and to improve parking capacity. As shown in Appendix C2, Alternative B would create 12 car parking spaces (including two designated as handicapped) and two recreational vehicle parking spaces. Additional employee parking near the bunkhouse and near the existing residence would also be added. Concrete walkways from the parking area to the administration building would be constructed. Disturbed areas would be revegetated with site-adapted native species. Project components would result in less than 1 acre of ground disturbance, most of which is previously disturbed land behind the exiting building and adjacent to the existing parking area. Only one small snag (dead tree) behind the existing building would need to be removed for this project and no live trees would be removed. Alternative C  New Access Road. This alternative is shown in Appendix C3 and summarized in Table 1 and includes those items applicable to both action alternatives as described above. This alternative would locate the new building near the existing building footprint, but behind it (Figure 6). It includes a 15-car, 2-RV parking area, concrete walkways and a new access road to the parking area from the main road. The parking area would be configured as a loop to allow for easy ingress and egress of vehicles, while maintaining existing ground cover and trees in the center. The access to the old building and the existing parking area would no longer be used by visitors and would be restricted to residential and administrative use. This alternative would result in approximately 2 acres of ground disturbance and approximately 20  25 trees greater than 6 inches dbh would need to be removed to accommodate the new access road and parking area. Concrete walkways from the parking area to the administration building would be constructed. Disturbed areas would be revegetated with site-adapted native species. ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY Building Design Initial proposals for this project were for a 3,500 square foot (SF) building. The interdisciplinary team determined that this was too large for the site and could be scaled down, while still meeting the administrative needs for office space. Subsequent designs focused on 2,000 to 3,000 SF buildings. Various building footprints (i.e. building shapes and floor plans) were also evaluated, such as  L-shaped ,  straight-run ,  cluster and  T-shaped and are documented in the Pre-design Package (NPS December 1999). In terms of the efficiency of the floor plan (a floor plan that provided the necessary program with the least amount of floor space), minimizing the footprint of the building to the site, and providing for a covered area for the public, the L-shaped building with a covered porch came forward as the preferred building layout. Other layouts were dismissed from further analysis. Site Layout Several proposals to address the need of traffic flow and congestion in the area were preliminarily evaluated. The site layout alternatives that came forward as a result of the value analysis included the following: Alternative 1: This alternative (identified as Alternative A in the Value Analysis) would construct the building on the existing building footprint and includes a new 15-car, 2-RV parking area and concrete walkways. The parking area would be behind the building in an undeveloped area, and accessed via a new road segment from the existing parking area. Visitors would use the same access road as they are currently, except that the existing parking area would be converted to walkways or revegetated and a new parking area would be developed behind the building. An additional road segment would be constructed from the existing parking area to the proposed parking area behind the building. This alternative would result in approximately 1.25 acres of new disturbed area and the removal of some trees. This alternative was dismissed from detailed analysis because it would result in new ground disturbance and tree removal and would alter the character of the site, while still not accomplishing all project objectives. Alternative 2: This alternative (identified as Alternative B in the Value Analysis) would locate the building off the existing building footprint (behind the existing building) and convert the site of the old building into parking. This alternative would allow for 11 cars and 2 RV parking spaces and would include some minor revegetation of existing paved areas. Visitors would use the same access road as they are currently. This alternative would result in approximately 0.75 acres of new disturbed area and some minor tree removal. While this alternative was ultimately dismissed from detailed analysis, certain components of this alternative were determined to have merit and were used as the basis for the formation of another alternative. Alternative B, described in detail in the Alternative Description section of this Chapter, and identified as the agency s preferred alternative, was based on some components of this alternative. Alternative 3: This alternative (identified as Alternative C in the Value Analysis) would locate the building entirely off the existing building footprint and out of, but adjacent to, the Historic District. It would include a 15-car, 2-RV parking area and concrete walkways. The parking area would be configured as a loop to allow for easy ingress and egress of vehicles, while maintaining existing ground cover and trees in the center. A new access from the main road to the parking lot would be constructed. The access to the old building would no longer be used by visitors and would be restricted to residential and administrative use. This alternative would result in approximately 2 acres of new disturbed area and would require substantial tree removal. This alternative was dismissed from detailed analysis due to the integrated nature of the administrative building to the Historic district and the need for the building to stay in a similar location for public ease. IDENTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The environmentally preferred alternative is determined by applying the criteria suggested in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), which guides the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The CEQ provides direction that  [t]he environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA s Section 101: 1. fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations; 2. assure for all generations safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; 3. attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk of health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences; 4. preserve important historic, cultural and natural aspects of our national heritage and maintain, wherever possible, an environment that supports diversity and variety of individual choice; 5. achieve a balance between population and resource use that will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life s amenities; and 6. enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources. Using selection factors from the Choosing by Advantages process and through the process of internal scoping, scoping with the public and other agencies, the environmentally preferred alternative selected is Alternative B. Alternative B best meets the purpose and need for action and best addresses the overall Park Service objectives and evaluation factors. Alternative B goes further than Alternatives A or C in addressing the six criteria listed above. The needs of the employees and the visitors now and in the future would be addressed with the replacement of the existing building with a larger one and the reconfiguration of the existing parking area to accommodate future increased use. The building and parking area would be designed to be esthetically and culturally pleasing. Alternative B preserves important historic, cultural, and natural resources in the area by construction of a building that is appropriate for the surrounding historic district and minimizing new ground disturbance. Alternative B, more than the other alternatives, achieves a balance between the needs of employees and visitors and natural and cultural resource protection. Alternative B greatly minimizes the level of tree removal and new ground disturbance necessary to meet the purpose and need for action, when compared to Alternative C and better meets evaluation criteria 1 and 4 above. Alternative B also minimizes intrusion into the Headquarters Historic District and addresses evaluation criterion 4 more so than Alternative C. No new information came forward from public scoping or consultation with other agencies to necessitate the development of any new alternatives, other than those described and evaluated in this document. Alternative B is recommended as the Preferred Alternative and meets both the purpose and need and the project objectives. MITIGATION MEASURES COMMON TO BOTH ACTION ALTERNATIVES To minimize resource impacts, the integral design features (i.e. mitigation measures) below would be followed during implementation of either of the action alternatives, and are analyzed as part of the action alternatives. These actions were developed to lessen the potential for adverse effects of the proposed action, in combination with foreseeable future actions, and have proven to be very effective in reducing environmental impacts on previous projects. Contractor Orientation. Contractors working in the Park are given orientation concerning proper conduct of operations. This orientation is provided in both written form and verbally at a preconstruction meeting. This policy will continue on proposed projects. Orientation topics will include: " Wildlife should not be approached or fed. " Collecting any Park resources, including plants, animals, and historic or prehistoric materials, is prohibited. " Contractor must have a safety policy in place and follow it. " A vehicle fuel leakage and spill plan will be developed and implemented for this project. " Other environmental concerns and requirements discussed elsewhere in this EA would be addressed, including relevant mitigation measures listed below. Limitation of Area Affected. The following mitigation measures will be implemented to minimize the area affected by construction activities. " The staging area for the construction office (a trailer), construction equipment, and material storage will be located in previously disturbed areas near the project site. All staging areas will be returned to pre-construction conditions once construction is complete. Standards for this, and methods for determining when the standards are met, will be developed in consultation with the Park Restoration Biologist. " Construction zones will be fenced with construction tape, snow fencing, or some similar material before any construction activity. The fencing will define the construction zone and confine activity to the minimum area required for construction. All protection measures will be clearly stated in the construction specifications, and workers will be instructed to avoid conducting activities beyond the construction zone as defined by the construction zone fencing. Soil Erosion. To minimize soil erosion, the following mitigation measures will be incorporated into the action alternatives. " Standard erosion control measures such as silt fences, sand bags, or equivalent control methods will be used to minimize any potential soil erosion. " Any trenching operations will be by rock saw, backhoe, trackhoe, and/or trencher, with excavated material side-cast for storage. After trenching is complete, bedding material will be placed and compacted in the bottom of the trench and the utility lines installed in the bedding material. Back filling and compaction will begin immediately after the utility lines are placed into the trench, and the trench surface will be returned to pre-construction contours. All trenching restoration operations will follow guidelines approved by Park staff. Compacted soils will be scarified and original contours reestablished. " A Salvage and Revegetation Plan will be developed for the project by a landscape architect or other qualified individual, in coordination with the Park Restoration Biologist. Any revegetation efforts will use site-adapted native species and/or native seed, and Park policies regarding revegetation and site restoration will be incorporated into the plan. The plan will consider, among other things, the use of native species, plant salvage potential, exotic vegetation and noxious weeds, and pedestrian barriers. Policy related to revegetation will be referenced in NPS Management Policies (NPS 2001b; Chapter 9). Exotic Vegetation and Noxious Weeds. To prevent the introduction and minimize the spread of exotic vegetation and noxious weeds, the following mitigation measures will be incorporated into the action alternatives. " Existing populations of exotic vegetation at the construction site will be treated prior to construction activities. Because numerous invasive species have been documented along road corridors on the North Rim and much of the trenching necessary for the waterline upgrades would occur near road corridors, pre-treatment of these areas would be necessary prior to implementation. " A restoration biologist or designated natural resources representative would be on-site during trenching operations to provide input on tree avoidance and salvage potential. " All construction equipment that would leave the road (e.g., bulldozers and backhoes) will be pressure washed prior to entering the Park. " The location of the staging area for construction equipment will be Park-approved and treated for exotic vegetation. " Parking of vehicles will be limited to existing roads or the staging area. " Any fill, rock, or additional topsoil needed will be obtained from a Park-approved source. " All areas disturbed by construction will be revegetated using site-adapted native seed and/or plants. Water Quality. To minimize potential impacts to water quality, the following mitigation measures will be incorporated into the action alternatives. " A storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) will be developed by the contractor and approved by the Park prior to any ground-disturbing activities. All National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements will be met. " Standard erosion control measures such as silt fences, sand bags, or equivalent control methods will be used to minimize any potential sediment delivery to streams. Special Status Species. To protect any unknown or undiscovered threatened, endangered, or special status species, the construction contract will include provisions for the discovery of such. These provisions will require the cessation of construction activities until Park staff evaluate the project impact on the discovery and will allow modification of the contract for any protection measures determined necessary to protect the discovery. Mitigation measures for known special status species are as follows: California Condor " Prior to the start of a construction project, the Park will contact personnel monitoring California condor locations and movement within the Park to determine the locations and status of condors in or near the project area. " If a condor occurs at the construction site, construction will cease until it leaves on its own or until permitted personnel employ techniques that result in the individual condor leaving the area. " Construction workers and supervisors will be instructed to avoid interaction with condors and to contact the appropriate Park or Peregrine Fund personnel immediately if and when condor(s) occur at a construction site. " The construction site will be cleaned up at the end of each day that work is being conducted (i.e., trash disposed of, scrap materials picked up) to minimize the likelihood of condors visiting the site. Park condor staff will complete a site visit to the area to ensure adequate clean-up measures are taken. " To prevent water contamination and potential poisoning of condors, a vehicle fluid- leakage and spill plan will be developed and implemented for this project. This plan will be reviewed by the Park biologist for adequacy in addressing condors. " If a new structure occurs on the rim or above tree line in other areas, there may be a need to install condor deterrent devices on the structure. This will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by the Park wildlife biologist. " If non-nesting condors occur within 1 mile of the project area, blasting will be postponed until condors leave or are hazed by permitted personnel. " If condor nesting activity is known within 1 mile of the project area, then blasting activity will be restricted during the active nesting season, if viable nests persist. The active nesting season is February 1 to October 15, or until young are fully fledged. These dates may be modified based on the most current information, in consultation with the Park biologist and the USFWS. " If condor nesting activity is known within 0.5 mile of the project area, then light and heavy construction in the project area will be restricted during the active nesting season, if viable nests persist. The active nesting season is February 1 to October 15, or until young are fully fledged. These dates may be modified based on the most current information, in consultation with the Park biologist and the USFWS. Mexican Spotted Owl (MSO) " If a construction project occurs within a Protected Activity Center (PAC) with no known nest site, then all construction activity will be restricted to the non-breeding season (September 1  February 28). However, if the project in a PAC is at least 0.8 km (0.5 mile) from known nest sites and the project does not include blasting, then the project can be implemented during the breeding season. The breeding season is March 1  August 31. " If a construction project outside of PACs occurs within 1.6 km (1 mile) of a known PAC nest or roost site, the boundary of a PAC where the nest or roost site is not known, or unsurveyed restricted, protected, or predicted MSO habitat, then all blasting in that project area will be restricted to the non-breeding season (September 1  February 28). " If a construction project outside of PACs occurs within 0.8 km (0.5 mile) of a known PAC nest or roost site, the boundary of a PAC where the nest or roost site is not known, or unsurveyed restricted, protected, or predicted MSO habitat, then light and heavy construction activity in that project area will be restricted to the non-breeding season (September 1  February 28). Cultural Resources. To minimize the impacts of construction activities on cultural resources, the following mitigation measures will be incorporated into the action alternatives. " If previously unknown archeological resources are discovered during the course of the project, a park archeologist will be contacted immediately. All work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted until the resources could be identified and documented and an appropriate mitigation strategy developed, if necessary, in accordance with the stipulations of the 1995 Programmatic Agreement among the National Park Service, the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regarding the General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. " All workers would be informed of the penalties of illegally collecting artifacts or intentionally damaging any archeological or historic property. Workers would also be informed of the correct procedures if previously unknown resources were uncovered during construction activities. " All undertakings affecting historic buildings and structures will be carried out in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (60 CFR 35842-35844) and other applicable NPS cultural resources policies and guidelines. Visual Resources. To minimize visual impacts, mitigation measures will include the following: " Trenching for underground utilities will be limited as much as possible to a 10-foot wide fenced construction zone. Clearing of trees and understory will be feathered to blend with natural openings in the forest canopy. " Natural, muted colors will be used to blend any metal surfaces into the landscape. " All contractors will use Lindbergh Hill for primary staging to minimize ground disturbance and to decrease the amount of construction equipment visible to visitors. Secondary staging would occur in existing disturbed areas in or near the campground as needed and as approved by park staff. Visitor Experience. The following mitigation measures will be incorporated into the action alternatives to minimize the impacts of construction activities on the visitor experience: " The Park may consider restricting construction activities during peak use days such as holidays and some weekends during the busiest times of the year to minimize disruption to visitors. " Traffic in any one direction will not be stopped for more than 15 minutes to minimize disruption to traffic flow. " Unless otherwise approved by the Park, operation of heavy construction equipment will be restricted to 8:00 am to 6:00 pm in the summer (May 1- September 30) and to 9:00 am to 5:00 pm during the rest of the year. " Information regarding implementation of this project and other foreseeable future projects would be shared with the public upon their entry into the park during construction periods. This may take the form of an informational brochure or flyer about the projects distributed at the gate and sent to those with reservations at park facilities, postings on the park s website, press releases, and/or other methods. The purpose of these efforts would be to minimize the potential for negative impacts to the visitor experience on the North Rim during implementation of this project and other planned projects during the same construction season. Park Operations. The following mitigation measures will be incorporated into the action alternatives to minimize the impacts of construction activities on park operations: " An independent contract inspector will be hired so Park staff will not need to monitor day to day contract compliance for this and other projects, when the amount of work exceeds the Park staff s capacity for adequate monitoring. Air Quality. Air quality impacts of the action alternatives are expected to be temporary and localized. To minimize these impacts, the following actions will be taken: " To reduce entrainment of fine particles from hauling material, sufficient freeboard will be maintained and loose material loads (aggregate, soils, etc.) will be tarped. " To reduce tailpipe emissions, construction equipment will not be left idling any longer than is necessary for safety and mechanical reasons. " To reduce construction dust in the short term, water will be applied to problem areas. Equipment will be limited to the fenced project area to minimize soil disturbance and consequent dust generation. " Landscaping and revegetation will control long-term soil dust production. Mulch and the plants themselves will stabilize the soil and reduce wind speed/shear against the ground surface. Alternatives and Project Objectives: The objectives of the action are described in Chapter 1 and also listed here: 1) constructing a new building that blends into the historic character of the historic district, 2) constructing a building that is appropriate for the snow accumulations common on the North Rim, and 3) minimizes the amount of new ground disturbance while still meeting the purpose and need of the proposal. Because the building design would be the essentially the same under Alternative B or C, the first two objectives would be met under the implementation of either of these action alternatives. The third objective of minimizing new ground disturbance is best met by Alternative B. Alternative A, the no action alternative, would meet the third objective by not disturbing any new ground, but would not address the purpose and need for action, nor would it meet the first objective of blending into the character of the historic district. Alternatives that were considered but dismissed from further analysis were dismissed in part because they did not sufficiently address one or all of these project objectives. Table 2 displays alternative components and compares the ability of the alternatives to meet project objectives. Table 1. Summary of Alternative Components Component Alternative A  No Action Alternative B  Preferred Alternative C  New Access Road Approximate Building Size (square feet) Existing trailer is 1,440 SF Existing trailer removed; new building would be 2,467 SF Existing trailer removed; new building would be 2,467 SF New Access Road and New Parking No No Yes Parking Area Size Existing lot has 13 parking spaces. No spaces are designed for recreational vehicles. Shared visitor and employee parking for 12 cars and 2 recreational vehicles in existing lot; 3 additional spaces created near bunkhouse for employees and 1 additional space near residence (18 spaces total) Visitor parking for 15 cars and 2 recreational vehicles in a newly constructed lot; employee parking in existing lot behind building would remain (30 spaces total) Approximate Amount of Ground Disturbance (acres) and level of tree removal 0 1 acre; no live trees removed 2 acres; 20  25 trees greater than 6 inches dbh removed Construction Staging None Primary staging at Lindberg Hill and secondary staging in existing parking area Primary staging at Lindberg Hill and secondary staging in existing parking area Accomplishment of Project Objectives Does not accomplish project objectives Accomplishes all project objectives Accomplishes some project objectives; Does not address Objective 1 or 3 as well as Alternative B Table 2. Comparative Summary of Environmental Impacts. Impact Topic Alternative A  No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C  New Access Road Cumulative Impacts Soils and Water Minor to moderate impacts; soil erosion and compaction problems at campground would continue; water would continue to be lost through leaking water pipes Negligible to minor, site-specific, short-term impacts through compaction and displacement of less than 1 acres of soil. Negligible, site-specific, short-term impacts through compaction and displacement of less than 2 acres of soil. Negligible to minor adverse long-term and short-term effects through soil compaction and displacement, increase in impermeable surfaces, and potential increases in soil erosion. Vegetation: Acres disturbed; exotic species potential 0 1 acre disturbed; Minor exotic species introduction potential  reduced with mitigation measures 2 acres disturbed; Minor exotic species introduction potential  reduced with mitigation measures Adverse, site-specific, long-term minor impact on the vegetative community through modification of 253 acres of vegetation from past development actions and proposed future development actions, or a total of 1.3% of the watershed subunit. Minor, adverse, local long-term impacts through previous establishment of exotic vegetation and the potential for spread of exotic vegetation on 19 acres of disturbed ground. Vegetation: Tree removal 0 0 20  25 ponderosa pine trees greater than 6 inches dbh would be removed Future planned projects would result in removal of up to 120-150 primarily ponderosa pine trees greater than 12 DBH. Tree removal would occur in small areas for individual projects in the existing developed area of the North Rim. General Wildlife Populations Populations generally remain the same; no effect to listed species or species of concern Negligible to minor short-term impacts to general wildlife populations Minor short-term impacts to general wildlife populations Minor to moderate adverse, local, short- and long-term impacts through direct disturbance during construction and indirect disturbance through habitat fragmentation as a result of past, present and future actions, minimized by concentration of development on the Bright Angel peninsula. Special Status Species: Mexican Spotted Owl (MSO) No change No direct disturbance of MSO habitat; Section 7 determination for remainder of project would be may affect, but is not likely to adversely effect (MANLAA) due to potential impacts of construction noise. No direct disturbance of MSO habitat; Section 7 determination for remainder of project would be MANLAA due to potential impacts of construction noise. Modification of potential foraging habitat, slight modification of potential nesting habitat for some future projects. Daily human activity on the Bright Angel peninsula would constitute a negligible to minor adverse, long-term, local effect to MSOs. California Condor No change Negligible to minor short-term adverse impacts through increased likelihood of contact between condors and humans during construction. Section 7 determination would be MANLAA. Negligible to minor short-term adverse impacts through increased likelihood of contact between condors and humans during construction. Section 7 determination would be MANLAA. Minor local, long- and short-term adverse impacts through increased likelihood of contact between condors and humans. Peregrine Falcon No change Negligible long-term adverse impacts through minor modification of potential foraging habitat Negligible long-term adverse impacts through minor modification of potential foraging habitat Negligible adverse local long-term adverse impacts through modification of potential foraging habitat Northern Goshawk No change Negligible adverse impacts through due to short-term construction noise and slight modification of potential foraging habitat. Negligible to minor adverse long-term impacts through minor modification of potential nesting and foraging habitat; negligible short-term adverse impacts during construction Minor adverse long- and short-term local effects through daily disturbance in developed areas during the breeding season and modification of potential nesting and foraging habitat Kaibab Squirrel No change Negligible adverse impacts due to short-term construction noise; no loss of potential nesting, foraging or sheltering sites. Minor long-term adverse impacts through loss of potential nesting, foraging and sheltering sites in ponderosa pine habitat; minor short-term adverse impacts during construction Moderate long-term local adverse impacts through loss or modification of potential nesting, foraging and sheltering sites in ponderosa pine habitat in the developed areas of the North Rim; moderate short-term adverse impacts during construction Historic Resources and Cultural Landscapes Minor long-term adverse impact through continued presence of incompatible trailer within the historic district, as the focal point of the district. Moderate long-term beneficial impact to historic district with removal of incompatible trailer and construction of new building. Section 106 finding would be a no adverse effect. Minor long-term impact to historic district with removal of incompatible trailer and construction of new access road and parking area in historic district. Section 106 finding would be an adverse effect. Adverse cumulative effects would be moderate, local, and long-term and would primarily be the result of past actions. Beneficial cumulative effects under the action alternatives would be moderate and long-term. Park Operations No change; minor to moderate adverse impacts would continue due to continued maintenance needs for substandard building. Minor to moderate long-term beneficial impacts through decreased substandard facility maintenance needs. Minor to moderate long-term beneficial impacts through decreased substandard facility maintenance needs; increase in length of roads to maintain. Moderate long-term beneficial impacts through implementation of multiple projects designed to improve park facilities and operational efficiency; moderate short-term adverse impacts during construction. Visitor Experience No change; long-term minor adverse impacts would continue due to congested parking area and substandard visitor services/administration building Minor short-term adverse impacts through increased noise and traffic delays during construction; Minor to moderate long-term beneficial impacts with new administration building and backcountry permit office and improved parking area. Minor short-term adverse impacts through increased noise and traffic delays during construction; Minor to moderate long-term beneficial impacts with new administration building and backcountry permit office and improved access and parking . Short-term cumulative impacts to visitor experience would be adverse, moderate and local. Long-term cumulative effects would be beneficial, moderate and local. Chapter 3  Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences INTRODUCTION This Chapter describes the present condition (i.e. affected environment) within the project area and the changes (i.e. environmental consequences) that can be expected from implementing the action alternatives or taking no action at this time. The no action alternative sets the environmental baseline for comparing the effects of the other alternatives. The impact topics (see Chapter 1) define the scope of the environmental concern for this project. The environmental effects, or changes from the present baseline condition, described in this chapter reflect the identified relevant impact topics, and include the intensity and duration of the action, mitigation measures and cumulative effects. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that environmental documents disclose the environmental impacts of proposed federal action, reasonable alternatives to that action, and any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposed action be implemented. Grand Canyon National Park encompasses approximately 1.2 million acres in northern Arizona. The project is located on the North Rim. The entire North Rim drains south into the Grand Canyon. Although it appears relatively flat, numerous drainages and canyons cut the North Rim. The project area is located on Bright Angel Peninsula, a narrow portion of the Kaibab Plateau on which most of the development on the North Rim is located. The project area is on relatively flat terrain at approximately 8,300 feet in elevation. METHODOLOGY The impact analysis and conclusions contained in this chapter were based on park staff knowledge of the resources and site; review of existing literature and park studies; information provided by specialists within the National Park Service and other agencies; and professional judgement. Detailed information on natural and cultural resources in Grand Canyon National Park that is summarized in the 1995 GMP and associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was specifically referenced for information on affected resources in the project area. Potential impacts in this chapter are described in terms of type (are the effects beneficial or adverse?), context (are the effects site-specific, local or even regional?), duration (are the effects short-term or long-term?), and intensity (negligible, minor, moderate or major). Because definitions of intensity can vary by impact topic, intensity definitions are provided separately for each impact topic analyzed in this EA. For purposes of impact analysis in this Chapter, the following definitions of duration are used to characterize impacts discussed. " Short-term  temporary effects typically confined to the construction period. " Long-term  more permanent effects that will remain following construction. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impact is defined as the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant actions, taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7). Therefore, it is necessary to identify other ongoing or foreseeable future actions within the vicinity of the project area. The area of cumulative impact was chosen to be the Bright Angel watershed subunit (Figure 3). This subunit is approximately 19,415 acres in size and includes the 340-acre Bright Angel peninsula (Figure 4) and much of Highway 67 to the North Rim entrance station. The area of impact was chosen to be the Bright Angel watershed subunit because of the potential for impacts of multiple actions on the natural environment within one watershed. Past and present activities that have affected the Bright Angel peninsula and the surrounding area include the Outlet Fire, past prescribed burns and wildfires, and existing development and visitation at the North Rim. Existing developments (roads, trails, parking areas, buildings, and utilities) have affected approximately 234 acres within the Bright Angel watershed subunit. The North Rim receives most of its visitation between May and October, when facilities at the North Rim are open. Visitation peaks in the summer months of June and July and is very limited in winter when snow blocks the road. Park staff is present at the North Rim throughout the year, with limited staffing in the winter, and perform general maintenance functions. The Outlet Fire burned approximately 14,000 acres on the North Rim in May - June 2000. Approximately 3,772 acres of the burn occurred in the Bright Angel Peninsula sub-unit. The fire burned in a mosaic pattern, with areas of low, moderate, and high burn severities throughout the fire perimeter. Areas with higher burn intensities are experiencing successful aspen regeneration, indicating that a type conversion from a primarily mixed conifer stand to a stand dominated by aspen may be occurring in some areas of the fire. Long-term monitoring using fixed plots designed to evaluate fire effects over time is in place across much of the Outlet Fire (C. Letz, GRCA, pers. comm. 3 December 2002). Prescribed burning has been conducted on 2,203 acres within the watershed sub-unit since 1997. Prescribed burning on the North Rim is designed to reduce hazardous fuel accumulation and restore fire to the ecosystem to reduce the risk of large-scale, stand replacing wildfire. Broadcast prescribed burning is the primary tool used on areas outside the Bright Angel Peninsula developed area to reduce hazardous fuel accumulations. Both broadcast prescribed burning and understory thinning are used in developed areas to reduce the risk of wildfire and to protect developments and structures in these areas. For this analysis, foreseeable future actions were considered to be actions that currently have funding or for which funding is being sought and that could occur within the next five years. Five years was selected as the period for foreseeable future actions because many of the actions identified in the GMP are likely to be either planned or implemented by that time. Twenty-one improvement projects, in addition to the proposed action, are planned within the Bright Angel Peninsula subwatershed and would result in disturbance to approximately 18 acres of ground. Most of this area has been previously disturbed. Approximately 120 - 150 trees greater than 12 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) would be removed for these projects. These projects are summarized in Appendix G and displayed in Figures 2 and 3. Over the next five years, prescribed fire is planned for 1,000 acres in 2004 and 500 acres in 2006 within the Bright Angel Peninsula sub-unit. Cumulative impacts are expected to be similar for any alternative selected because of the small amount of disturbance relative to the watershed as a whole. If the No-Action Alternative were selected, and all other future projects were implemented, the impacts to the natural environment would still be similar to those that would occur if any one of the action alternatives for this project were selected. The differences between the action alternatives are also not measurable, when combined with other future actions on a watershed level. Therefore, the analysis applies to any alternative selected. A cumulative impact analysis was conducted for the full implementation of the GMP and is documented in the EIS. The general finding in the EIS for cumulative effects to natural resources was a net reduction in natural habitat within the Park and the region, but a net reduction less than that for two other alternatives analyzed. Cumulative effects to archeological resources could occur, specifically to traditional cultural properties, but a planned ethnographic survey program would minimize this likelihood. Cumulative effects were not expected to historic structures under the assumption that existing cultural resources within the park would be protected and preserved and some historic buildings would be rehabilitated and restored. Cumulative effects to visitor experience in the Park under implementation of the GMP were expected to be positive overall as the result of additional food service and accommodations and contributions to regional and national efforts to expand informational resources, expand interpretive and educational opportunities, and disperse tourism in the area. Because the GMP was a general concept plan and because it required that site-specific analyses be conducted for projects identified in the GMP, a cumulative effects analysis that is more specific to impact topics pertaining to the North Rim campground rehabilitation and water distribution system improvements is needed. Cumulative impacts are expected to be similar for any alternative selected because of the small amount of disturbance relative to the watershed as a whole. If the No-Action Alternative were selected, and all other future projects were implemented, the impacts to the human environment would still be similar to those that would occur if any one of the action alternatives for this project were selected. Cumulative impacts are described in this Chapter for each impact topic. Impairment In addition to determining the environmental consequences of implementing the alternatives, National Park Service policy (Management Policies 2001) requires analysis of potential effects to determine whether actions would impair park resources. The fundamental purpose of the national park system, established by the Organic Act and reaffirmed by the General Authorities Act, as amended, begins with a mandate to conserve park resources and values. National Park Service managers must always seek ways to avoid, or to minimize to the greatest degree practicable, adverse impacts on park resources and values. However, the laws do give the National Park Service the management discretion to allow impacts to park resources and values when necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of a park, as long as the impact does not constitute impairment of the affected resources and values. Although Congress has given the National Park Service the management discretion to allow certain impacts within parks, that discretion is limited by the statutory requirement that the National Park Service must leave park resources and values unimpaired, unless a particular law directly and specifically provides otherwise. The prohibited impairment is an impact that, in the professional judgment of the responsible National Park Service 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. An impact to any park resource or value may constitute impairment. An impact would be more likely to constitute impairment to the extent that it affects a resource or value whose conservation is: " necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the park; " key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or " Identified as a goal in the park s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. Impairment may result from National Park Service activities in managing the park, visitor activities, or activities undertaken by concessioners, contractors, and others operating in the park. The potential for impairment is discussed for each applicable resource for each alternative in this chapter. A statement summarizing the conclusions of this evaluation is included in the conclusion statement at the end of the environmental consequences section for each applicable resource in this chapter. NATURAL RESOURCES SOIL AND WATER Affected Environment The developed areas of the North Rim, including the project location, are underlain by Kaibab limestone, a very porous rock layer. This and other porous sedimentary layers of Grand Canyon create a topography in which numerous solution channels and sinks have formed. Little or no surface water is present because water penetrates through the soil and rock layers quickly. Soils tend to be shallow and poorly developed, but stable, with frequent rock outcroppings. Soil horizons and structure are well developed and are well drained. Productivity of most soils in the Park is low, so that revegetation is slow and usually requires considerable maintenance. However, North Rim soils are generally deeper and retain more moisture than South Rim soils so that revegetation efforts are generally more successful here (GMP 1995). Warren (1982) describes soils in the vegetation type characteristic of the project area as moderately deep with loamy texture, derived from Kaibab limestone. A soil survey of the Grand Canyon has been conducted over the last several years by Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The study has documented that soils in the developed area of the North Rim are generally rocky and cobbly, with varying amounts of clay. Bedrock is typically 30-60 inches below the soil surface (NRCS 2001). Soils in the project area are in satisfactory condition (indicating the soil has retained its inherent productivity). This is due to the presence of needlecast and downed woody material that protects the soil from erosion by preventing raindrops from directly impact soil particles (Kohnke and Franzmeier 1995) and the overall lack of any previous significant ground disturbance such as wildlife or domestic livestock grazing pressure. Due to the soil types in the area, building foundations should be built on bedrock 30-60 inches below the soil surface (Lindsay, NRCS, pers. comm.) The project area is located within the Bright Angel Creek watershed subunit (Figure 3). There is no standing water nor any major or minor drainages in the project vicinity. There is no riparian habitat present within or adjacent to the project area. Although the North Rim has a few sinkhole ponds, wet meadows and small springs, there is very little surface water on the plateaus of Grand Canyon National Park, and there is no surface water within the developed portion of the North Rim. Most water movement in this area is subsurface flow. Environmental Consequences Methodology The baseline information used to assess impacts to soil and water resources is as described in the methodology section at the beginning of this chapter and includes park staff knowledge of the resources and site; review of existing literature and park studies; information provided by specialists within the National Park Service and other agencies; and professional judgement. Detailed information on natural and cultural resources in Grand Canyon National Park that is summarized in the 1995 GMP and associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was specifically referenced for information on affected resources in the project area. Additional sources of information on soil and water resources used as a basis for this evaluation are as described above in the affected environment section. The thresholds of change for the intensity of an impact on soil and water resources are defined as follows: Negligible  a change to soil or water resources that is not measurable or perceptible. Minor  a measurable or perceptible, small, localized change to soil or water resources. The change is of little consequence. Moderate  a change to soil or water resources that is measurable and of consequence but is localized. Major  a measurable change to soil or water resources that is large and/or widespread and could have permanent consequences for the resource. Alternative A  No Action Direct/Indirect Effects. Approximately 234 acres of soil have been disturbed for existing developments in the 19,415-acre Bright Angel watershed subunit. Construction activities can result in reduced water infiltration, reduced soil porosity, reduced water holding capacity, reduced aeration of the soil, increased surface runoff, and increased soil erosion (except in those areas that are covered by impervious surfaces) through the compaction and displacement of soil. Because of the high porosity of the soils, low rainfall, and lack of steep slopes at the North Rim, these effects have been minor. The impacts to soil and water resources have been adverse, minor, local, and long-term. No construction activities are proposed under Alternative A, and this alternative would result in no additional effects to soil and water resources. Cumulative Impacts. Past and present development has resulted in soil compaction and displacement on approximately 234 acres within the Bright Angel watershed subunit, and foreseeable future development would affect approximately 18 acres of soil (18 acres for foreseeable future projects and no disturbance for this action). Figure 3 displays the Bright Angel watershed subunit, vegetation types within the subunit and foreseeable future actions. Future actions are described briefly in Appendix G and displayed on Figures 2 and 3. All of these future projects would occur within the developed area of the North Rim and would be in, or in close proximity to, previously disturbed and developed areas. A developed zone for the North Rim has been identified in the 1995 GMP and is used to guide management actions. This developed zone, which primarily includes Bright Angel peninsula but also encompasses the North Rim Entrance Road and roads out to the Walhalla Plateau, comprises approximately 1,127 acres within the Bright Angel watershed subunit, or approximately 6% of the subunit. Approximately 234 acres of this, or 21%, is disturbed by past activities and developments. Existing developments include roads, trails, parking areas, buildings, and utilities (Figure 3 and Figure 4). Mitigation measures would be implemented for these future actions and would minimize effects on soil erosion and surface water. Any increases in soil erosion would be limited to the period of construction and vegetation recovery. Therefore, combining taking no action at this time with implementation of foreseeable future actions would result in cumulative effects on soil and water resources that would be negligible, short- and long-term, local, and adverse. Impairment. Adverse impacts under any alternative would be negligible to minor. Because there would be no major, adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of Grand Canyon National Park; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or (3) identified as a goal in the Park s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park s resources or values. Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Direct/Indirect Effects. Approximately 1 to 2 acres of soil would be disturbed under the action alternatives. The majority of this new ground disturbance would be covered with buildings, pavement, or other impervious surfaces and would not be susceptible to future erosion. The majority of water would continue to be lost through percolation, and surface runoff from the North Rim would remain associated with severe storm events. Due to this low level of ground disturbance, the quality of ground and surface water would not be measurably affected by the proposed developments. Any increases in sedimentation during construction would be minimal because of the lack of surface water runoff and implementation of standard soil erosion control measures. In addition, the potential impacts of increased sedimentation would be limited to the period of construction and vegetation recovery. Mitigation measures that have been included for the action alternatives are designed to minimize soil disturbance and increased runoff during construction. Therefore, direct and indirect effects to the soil and water resources under Alternative B or Alternative C would be negligible, local, adverse, and both long- and short-term. Cumulative Impacts. Past and present development has resulted in soil compaction and displacement on approximately 234 acres within the Bright Angel watershed subunit, and foreseeable future development would affect approximately 19 acres of soil (18 acres for foreseeable future projects and 1 acres for preferred alternative). Figure 3 displays the Bright Angel watershed subunit, vegetation types within the subunit and foreseeable future actions. Future actions are described briefly in Appendix G and displayed on Figures 2 and 3. All of these future projects would occur within the developed area of the North Rim and would be in, or in close proximity to, previously disturbed and developed areas. A developed zone for the North Rim has been identified in the 1995 GMP and is used to guide management actions. This developed zone, which primarily includes Bright Angel peninsula but also encompasses the North Rim Entrance Road and roads out to the Walhalla Plateau, comprises approximately 1,127 acres within the Bright Angel watershed subunit, or approximately 6% of the subunit. Approximately 234 acres of this, or 21%, is disturbed by past activities and developments. Existing developments include roads, trails, parking areas, buildings, and utilities (Figure 3 and Figure 4). Mitigation measures would be implemented for these future actions and would minimize effects on soil erosion and surface water. Any increases in soil erosion would be limited to the period of construction and vegetation recovery. The Outlet Fire burned approximately 3,772 acres in the Bright Angel watershed subunit in May 2000. The fire burned in a mosaic pattern, with areas of low, moderate, and high burn severities throughout the fire perimeter. The short-term impacts of this fire on soil and water resources include increased soil movement, soil loss, and sedimentation into downstream drainages. These short-term impacts should stabilize within 3-5 years. Prescribed burns have also occurred within the watershed subunit, totally approximately 2,203 acres over the last several years. More burns are planned and are expected to be implemented on 1,500 acres over the next five years. Although these prescribed burns are a disturbance to the site and result in some changes to vegetation and ground cover in the areas burned, they would not appreciably or measurably affect soils. Soil movement may result following the burn due to the temporary loss of ground cover in some areas, but this movement would be limited to small areas, generally less than 1 acre in size and distributed throughout the burn unit, where prescribed fire intensity was greatest due to existing high fuel loads. Combining the Outlet Fire, prescribed fire and existing and future development within the Bright Angel watershed subunit would result in disturbance to approximately 7,729 acres, which is less than 40% of the watershed subunit. The majority of the watershed subunit is essentially undisturbed ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forest within the park boundary (Figure 3). Therefore, cumulative effects on soil and water resources would be negligible to minor, short- and long-term, local, and adverse. Impairment. Adverse impacts under the no action alternative would be negligible. Because there would be no major, adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of Grand Canyon National Park; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or (3) identified as a goal in the Park s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park s resources or values. Conclusion The No-Action Alternative would result in the least impact to soil and water resources. Impacts to soil and water resources would be less for Alternative B than for Alternative C, but still considered negligible for both action alternatives. Cumulative impacts, regardless of the alternative selected for this project, would be negligible to minor, and none of the alternatives would result in impairment of soil or water resources. Mitigation measures that have been included for action alternatives are designed to keep erosion and sedimentation within acceptable limits by minimizing soil disturbance and increased runoff during construction. Toxic materials will not be introduced into the soils or watershed during construction activities, and permit clauses would address spillage situations. The lack of steep slopes, perennial water, or drainages in the project area also substantially reduces the risk of negative impacts to soils and water off the project site. VEGETATION Affected Environment The major vegetation type on the North Rim is Rocky Mountain montane conifer woodland. Four montane coniferous forest communities are distributed in broad elevation bands across the north rim. At the highest elevations above 8,800 feet is a mixed conifer forest dominated by Engelman spruce (Picea engelmannii), white fir (Abies concolor), ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). Below this, from about 8,400 feet is a community dominated by ponderosa pine and Douglas fir. Below this, from about 8,000 feet is a community dominated by ponderosa pine and white fir. The last community forms a broad belt from about 8,000 feet to the plateau rim at 7,600 feet with ponderosa pine as a single dominant. The one abundant deciduous tree on the North Rim is quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), and it is common throughout all of these forest communities (Warren et. al 1982). Understory deciduous shrubs common to all forest types include Gambel s oak (Quercus gambelii), New Mexico locust (Robinia neomexicana) and Utah serviceberry (Amelanchier utahensis). The specific project area falls within the Ponderosa Pine  New Mexican locust  Gambel s Oak Series. The physiognomy of this type includes open park-like stands, deciduous shrubs patchily distributed in clumps in the understory, and variable herbaceous ground cover. Quaking aspen also occurs within this type, typically in drainages at the higher elevations (Warren et al. 1982). Generally speaking, the administration building occurs in ponderosa pine habitat (Figure 4). There are 19 exotic plant species of primary concern on the North Rim (Appendix E). Exotic species of highest concern on the North Rim include red top grass (Agrostis stolonifera), smooth brome (Bromus inemis), oxeye daisy (chrysanthemum leucanthrum), houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale), orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica), horehound (Marribium vulgare) and Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense). These will be the focus of surveys and mitigation measures to minimize the potential for introduction or spread in the project area. Environmental Consequences Methodology The baseline information used to assess impacts to vegetation is as described in the methodology section at the beginning of this chapter and includes park staff knowledge of the resources and site; review of existing literature and park studies; information provided by specialists within the National Park Service and other agencies; and professional judgement. Detailed information on natural and cultural resources in Grand Canyon National Park that is summarized in the 1995 GMP and associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was specifically referenced for information on affected resources in the project area. Additional sources of information on vegetation used as a basis for this evaluation are as described above in the affected environment section. The thresholds of change for the intensity of an impact to vegetation are defined as follows: Negligible  a change to a biotic community that is not measurable or perceptible. Minor  a measurable or perceptible, small, localized change to a biotic community. The change is of little consequence. Moderate  a change to a biotic community that is measurable and of consequence but is localized. Major  a measurable change to a biotic community. The change is large and/or widespread and could have permanent consequences for the species or resource. Alternative A  No Action Direct/Indirect Effects. Approximately 234 acres of montane conifer forest have been modified with existing developments in the 19,415-acre Bright Angel watershed subunit. This impact to vegetation is considered adverse, but site-specific and confined to existing developed areas, so constitutes a long-term but minor effect to vegetation in this area. No vegetation manipulation or construction activities are proposed under Alternative A, and this alternative would result in no additional effects to the biotic community. The No Action alternative would maintain the existing vegetation community in its current condition and would not require any tree removal. The construction of existing roads and buildings in the Bright Angel watershed subunit has resulted in the presence of exotic vegetation in these areas. Approximately 234 acres of ground has been disturbed for the construction of existing visitor services, housing, roads, and utilities. Ongoing exotic vegetation control programs, which include hand pulling, mechanical treatments, and a small amount of herbicide control, would continue under the No-Action Alternative. Because the size of the current program is limited, existing populations of exotic vegetation would continue to spread and slowly replace native vegetation. This would most likely occur along roads and utility corridors. These impacts would be minor, adverse, local, and long-term. This alternative would not implement any new ground-disturbing activities and thus would have no additional effects on exotic vegetation or noxious weeds. Cumulative Impacts: In addition to the approximately 234 acres of habitat that have been impacted by existing development, modification of an additional 18 acres would occur as the result of foreseeable future development and construction-related projects in the North Rim developed area (Figure 2, Figure 4, Appendix G). All of these future projects would occur within the developed area of the North Rim and would be in, or in close proximity to, previously disturbed and developed areas. Up to approximately 120 - 150 large (greater than 12 inches dbh) ponderosa pine trees may need to be removed as a result of implementation of foreseeable future projects. This adverse impact on the vegetative community would be site-specific, long-term, and minor when future projects are implemented in combination with impacts already existing from past actions. Cumulative impacts would include decreased wildlife security, disturbance to adjacent habitat, and fragmentation in the North Rim. However, this disturbance of vegetation and wildlife habitat through planned projects and associated tree removal would occur within the existing developed area of the North Rim where development already exists and visitation levels are high in peak season. These local, short- and long-term, adverse impacts would be minor because of the widespread availability of montane conifer habitat within the Bright Angel watershed subunit and the concentration of the disturbance in a relatively small area of the peninsula, which comprises a small percentage of the watershed as a whole. Therefore, taking no action at this time, combined with foreseeable future project implementation would result in minor short-term adverse impacts to vegetation. Impairment. Adverse impacts to the biotic community under the no action alternative would be negligible. Because there would be no major, adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of Grand Canyon National Park; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or (3) identified as a goal in the Park s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park s resources or values. Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Direct/Indirect Effects. Loss of vegetation for construction of the new administration building would likely have negligible, adverse, local, long-term effects on vegetation communities. There is a possibility that construction activities and necessary utility trenching under any action alternative could damage tree root systems in the area. Root damage can sometimes result in tree mortality within a 5-10 year period. This would create the potential for hazard trees adjacent to the project area over time, and the need for them to be removed in the future. An increase in the amount of disturbed ground would increase the potential for the spread or introduction of exotic vegetation. However, most of the new ground disturbance would not be subject to potential exotic vegetation invasion because it would be covered by impervious surfaces. In addition, mitigation measures such as pressure washing of ground-disturbing equipment would substantially reduce the risk of introducing a new exotic species. Post-construction revegetation, monitoring, and treatment, when feasible, would also reduce the risk of spreading existing populations and introducing new species. Overall impacts of either action alternative on the spread and introduction of exotic vegetation would be adverse, negligible, local, and long-term. Cumulative Impacts: In addition to the approximately 234 acres of habitat that have been impacted by existing development, modification of an additional 19 acres would occur as the result of foreseeable future development and construction-related projects in the North Rim developed area (Figure 2, Figure 4, Appendix G). All of these future projects would occur within the developed area of the North Rim and would be in, or in close proximity to, previously disturbed and developed areas. Up to approximately 120 - 150 large (greater than 12 inches dbh) ponderosa pine trees may need to be removed as a result of implementation of foreseeable future projects. This adverse impact on the vegetative community would be site-specific, long-term, and minor when future projects are implemented in combination with impacts already existing from past actions. Cumulative impacts would include decreased wildlife security, disturbance to adjacent habitat, and fragmentation in the North Rim. However, this disturbance of vegetation and wildlife habitat through planned projects and associated tree removal would occur within the existing developed area of the North Rim where development already exists and visitation levels are high in peak season. These local, short- and long-term, adverse impacts would be minor because of the widespread availability of montane conifer habitat within the Bright Angel watershed subunit and the concentration of the disturbance in a relatively small area of the peninsula, which comprises a small percentage of the watershed as a whole. The Outlet Fire, as described previously, burned approximately 14,000 acres on the North Rim in May 2000. Approximately 3,772 acres of the burn occurred in the Bright Angel watershed subunit. The fire burned in a mosaic pattern, with areas of low, moderate, and high burn severities throughout the fire perimeter. Areas with higher burn intensities are experiencing successful aspen regeneration, indicating that a type conversion from a primarily mixed conifer stand to a stand dominated by aspen may be occurring in some areas of the fire. Long-term monitoring using fixed plots designed to evaluate fire effects over time is in place across much of the Outlet Fire (C. Letz, GRCA, pers. comm.. 12/3/02). Because burned areas within the Outlet Fire perimeter will recover and are providing suitable habitat for a variety of wildlife and plant species, the effect of the Outlet fire is not considered a net loss of vegetation or habitat, and now contributes vegetative and habitat diversity to the area. Prescribed burning has been conducted on 2,203 acres within the watershed subunit and is planned for an additional 1,500 acres over the next five years within the subunit. Prescribed burning on the North Rim is designed to reduce hazardous fuel accumulation and restore fire back into the ecosystem in order to reduce the risk of large-scale stand replacing wildfire. Broadcast prescribed burning is the primary tool used on areas outside the Bright Angel peninsula developed area to reduce hazardous fuel accumulations. Both broadcast prescribed burning and understory thinning is used in developed areas to reduce the risk of wildfire and to protect developments and structures in these areas. Although prescribed burning results in changes to the vegetative composition of stands treated, these changes are typically limited to the understory and are short-term changes. Prescribed fire would not result in changes to the overall vegetation type or stand composition. For these reasons, prescribed fire would not result in substantial changes in the long-term use of these areas by wildlife and are designed to provide for the natural inherent variability in these stands. Short-term and long-term impacts to vegetation from the Outlet Fire, past prescribed burns and from proposed future prescribed burns may result, as described above, but would still constitute less than 40% of the watershed subunit. The vast majority of the watershed subunit is essentially undisturbed ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forest within the park boundary. Therefore, cumulative effects to vegetation would be adverse, but minor and both short- and long-term. Impairment. Adverse impacts to the biotic community under any alternative would be negligible to minor. Because there would be no major, adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of Grand Canyon National Park; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the Park; or (3) identified as a goal in the Park s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the Park s resources or values. Alternative B  Preferred Direct/Indirect Effects: Alternative B would not require any live tree removal. One small (less than 12 inches dbh) snag would likely need to be removed behind the existing building to accommodate the new building, but no other tree removal would be necessary. Ground disturbance, however, is necessary for either alternative and herbaceous grasses and shrubs would be disturbed in some areas for both alternatives. This disturbance would be less for Alternative B than for Alternative C. Alternative B would result in negligible long- and short-term, local, adverse impacts to vegetation. Alternative C  New Access Road Direct/Indirect Effects. Alternative C would result in approximately 1 more acre of ground disturbance than Alternative B, due to the construction of a new access road and parking area behind the existing building. Approximately 20  25 ponderosa pine trees greater than six inches dbh would need to be removed for the construction of the new access road and parking. While this level of tree removal is not substantial on a watershed level, it is substantial when compared to Alternatives A and B. Alternative C would result in minor long-term adverse impacts to vegetation. Conclusions The No-Action Alternative would result in the least impact to vegetation. Alternative B would result in less new ground disturbance than Alternative C and no live tree removal. Alternative B would result in negligible long- and short-term, local, adverse impacts to vegetation while Alternative C would result in minor long- and short-term, local, adverse impacts to vegetation. Cumulative impacts would also be adverse, but would still be minor due to the extent of undisturbed montane conifer forest in the Bright Angel watershed subunit and the small percentage the developed portion of the North Rim comprises of the available forested area within the watershed subunit. WILDLIFE Affected Environment General Wildlife: Mammals typically associated with montane conifer forests on the North Rim include porcupine, mule deer, 19 species of bats, montane voles, chipmunks, and Kaibab squirrels. Birds include red-faced warbler, pine siskin, yellow-rumped warbler, pygmy nuthatch, western bluebird, blue grouse, Merriam s turkey, and several species of hawks (red-tailed hawk, Cooper s hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, and northern goshawk). Amphibians and reptiles include tiger salamander, northern leopard frog, western rattlesnake, ringneck snake, and western skink (Brown 1994). Those species that are not considered special status species, but for which there is interest in and concern for their populations on the North Rim, are listed in the following table and discussed briefly below. This list was developed based on input from biologists from the Park, AGFD, and USFWS. Table 3. Species of Interest on the North Rim. Common Name Scientific Name Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus Blue grouse Dendragapus obscurus Desert bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis Mountain lion Felis concolor Voles and shrews Microtus spp. and Sorex spp. Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis Flammulated owl Otis flammeolus Breeding birds Various species, see belowThe administration building project would occur in habitat suitable for mule deer, voles and shrews, and breeding birds. Because the project area is relatively small, mule deer would not rely solely on the project area for their habitat requirements. Ferruginous hawks would likely occur closer to meadows outside of the developed zone. Flammulated owls and blue grouse are known to occur in denser mixed conifer forest on the North Rim, but generally outside of the Bright Angel peninsula. Mountain lions and bighorn sheep may travel through the project area, but it does not provide key habitat for these species because it is within the developed area of the North Rim on the Bright Angel peninsula, and existing use by visitors and employees in this area is moderate to high during peak season. Breeding Birds. The Arizona Working Group of Partners in Flight developed a Bird Conservation Plan (Latta et al. 1999) as part of a national effort to address the concern for the future of migratory and resident birds. The Conservation Plan lists priority bird species by habitat type and identifies management actions that will benefit those species. The project areas are in ponderosa pine and the Conservation Plan identifies four priority species in this habitat type: northern goshawk, olive-sided flycatcher, cordilleran flycatcher, and purple martin. Combined, these priority species, as well as species associated with them, use the entire range of structural levels represented in ponderosa pine from grasses to the top of the canopy. The goshawk is also considered a special status species and will be discussed below. Management recommendations for habitat for the olive-sided flycatcher include maintaining or creating tall snags for perches and applying presettlement restoration treatments. Recommendations for the cordilleran flycatcher include maintaining dense canopy closure in mid- to late-successional stages with an oak understory and dead and down trees for nesting. Recommendations for purple martin include creating snags and promoting the longevity of large snags, use prescribed fire and mechanical thinning to reduce tree densities and manage for openings in the forest canopy. Arizona Partners in Flight recommends using fire as a management tool to create desired forest conditions and reduce fuel load as an efficient method for all four bird species. Recommendations for forest management that would benefit breeding birds came out of a study by Rosenstock (1996) that included a study site in Grand Canyon National Park. Recommendations pertinent to this project include retention of snags, Gambel oaks, and large old ponderosa pine, particularly those equal to or greater than 24 inches dbh. Special Status Species. Table 4 includes a list of threatened, endangered, proposed, and species of concern on the North Rim of Grand Canyon National Park, based on known occurrences or habitat preferences. In-depth discussion of federally listed species issues in the analysis area is the subject of a separate Biological Assessment (BA). Of the 10 federally listed wildlife and plant species that are known to occur or are likely to occur in Grand Canyon National Park, three occur on or near the North Rim. There are no confirmed nest or roost locations for special status species in the project area. The list in Table 4 was developed from personal knowledge of the area by park biologists, park records, the AGFD Heritage Nongame Data Management System database (2000), and Arizona Game and Fish Department and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists. A detailed analysis of the expected effects of this project on Threatened and Endangered species is the subject of a separate Biological Assessment (NPS 2002). A brief description of the special status species applicable to this project is included in Appendix D. Table 4. Special Status Species of the North Rim, Based on Known Occurrences or Habitat Preferences. Species Scientific Name Status Project Vicinity Occurrence Mexican Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis lucida T, WC Nearest known protected activity center is greater than 0.5 miles from project area; project area not considered MSO critical habitat. California Condor Gymnogyps californicus T*, WC No nest sites known in vicinity, but condors observed regularly on North Rim. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum WC, SC Nearest known eyrie is approximately 2 miles south of project area; foraging potential in developed areas is low Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentiles WC, SC Nearest goshawk territory boundary is approximately 1 mile northwest of project area; nesting and foraging habitat potential in project vicinity Kaibab Squirrel Sciurus aberti kaibabensis NNL Yes; known to occur throughout North Rim developed areas; project area within NNL designated habitat Greater Western Mastiff Bat Eumops perotis californicus WC, SC No known roosts nearby; foraging and roosting potential unlikely in North Rim developed areas Spotted Bat Euderma maculatum SC No known roosts nearby; foraging and roosting potential unlikely in North Rim developed areas Northern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens WC No known locations nearby, but North Rim is within range for the speciesKey: T = federally listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); WC = Wildlife species of special concern in Arizona (AZ Game and Fish Department 10/14/96); SC = former species of concern to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, but for which there is no legal status (all former C2 species Fed Reg. 2/28/96); T* = federally listed as an experimental non-essential population in Arizona, but in National Parks the species is considered federally listed as threatened under ESA; NNL = population on Kaibab plateau is considered a National Natural Landmark with direction to federal agencies to consider the unique properties of Natural Landmarks when assessing effects of actions on environment; PAC = Mexican spotted owl protected activity center. The greater western mastiff bat and spotted bat are known to occur on the North Rim. Both species roost in cliffs and are insectivorous. Recent studies in northern Arizona are focusing on greater western mastiff bats and have been documenting roosts and foraging areas in the Grand Canyon. There are, however, no documented roost sites or key foraging areas within the general vicinity of project locations, although foraging is likely to occur in the open meadows north of the developed zone. An increasing number of studies are focusing on spotted bats and are slowly improving our understanding on this species (including recent surveys on neighboring Kaibab National Forest), although population abundance and densities are still poorly known. Spotted bats have recently been documented roosting in cliff faces in Grand Canyon, and have been documented foraging on the north and south rims of the park. Spotted bats forage in meadows. There are no documented roosting or foraging sites within the general vicinity of the proposed project locations, although foraging is likely to occur in the open meadows north of the developed zone. The proposed project and past, present, or foreseeable future actions would not affect roosting or foraging habitat or prey populations for these species. Therefore, these species were not considered further in this document. The Northern leopard frog has not been documented in the North Rim developed area on Bright Angel peninsula. However, old records indicate that the species may occur on the North Rim. Surveys are currently underway to determine presence and distribution within the park. Because there are no known occurrences in or near the project area and because the project area does not contain potential habitat for this species, Northern leopard frog was not considered further in this document. Environmental Consequences Methodology The baseline information used to assess impacts to wildlife and special status species is as described in the methodology section at the beginning of this chapter and includes park staff knowledge of the resources and site; review of existing literature and park studies; information provided by specialists within the National Park Service and other agencies; and professional judgement. Detailed information on natural and cultural resources in Grand Canyon National Park that is summarized in the 1995 GMP and associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was specifically referenced for information on affected resources in the project area. Additional sources of information on wildlife used as a basis for this evaluation are as described above in the affected environment section. The thresholds of change for the intensity of an impact on wildlife populations are defined as follows: Negligible  No impacts to general wildlife populations or listed special status species or impacts that are only temporary in effect are expected. These temporary effects would be short-term, localized and not perceptible. For purposes of Section 7 under the Endangered Species Act, the determination of effect would be no effect to listed species or their habitat. Minor  a measurable but small, localized change to a population or individuals of a species or to designated critical habitat. The change is of little consequence, but is not discountable. For purposes of Section 7 under the Endangered Species Act, the determination of effect would be may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect listed species or their habitat. Moderate  a change to a population or individuals of a species or to designated critical habitat. The change is measurable and of consequence, but localized. The change is not expected to threaten the continued existence of the listed species within the Park. For purposes of Section 7 under the Endangered Species Act, the determination of effect would either be may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect listed species or their habitat or may affect, likely to adversely affect listed species or their habitat. Major  a measurable and large and/or widespread change to a population or individuals of a species or to designated critical habitat. The change could threaten the continued existence of the species in the Park. For purposes of Section 7 under the Endangered Species Act, the determination of effect would be may affect, likely to adversely affect listed species or their habitat. Alternative A - No Action Direct/Indirect Impacts The no action alternative would maintain the project area in its current state and would continue to provide habitat in the project area for many wildlife species, although habitat quality in the immediate area would remain relatively low due to the existing level of development and human activity. Without a change in vegetation or human use in the project area, wildlife populations would generally remain the same. Selection of the no action alternative would not affect TES species in the project vicinity, or their habitat, beyond the on-going impacts of visitation and human activity that have been occurring in this area for many years. The continued use of the building would not impact any sensitive wildlife habitat requirements such as nesting and/or roosting sites, key foraging areas, key calving or fawning areas, or primary wildlife travel corridors. Selection of the no action alternative would therefore have no impact on the species of interest or species of concern listed above. Mexican Spotted Owl: Ongoing activities at the North Rim create daily disturbance from mid-May to mid-October. Fewer people visit the North Rim during the remainder of the year, when park facilities are closed and snow often obstructs the road. This disturbance has decreased the quality of habitat in and around the North Rim developed area for MSO and would continue under the No-Action Alternative. These local, adverse, long-term impacts are negligible because no roosting or nesting habitat is present on the North Rim and the amount of foraging habitat affected is negligible compared to the amount of available habitat. No vegetation manipulation or construction activities are proposed under Alternative A, and no new sources of disturbance would be introduced. Alternative A would therefore have no additional effects on MSO. California Condor: Existing developments at the North Rim create year-round human presence in the vicinity. Human presence creates the possibility for condor/human interactions. Condors are monitored daily via radio telemetry, and any condors that land in the developed area at the North Rim would be hazed by permitted Park employees to ensure condors do not become habituated to humans. Current Park policies and activities would be continued under Alternative A, and adverse impacts to condors would be negligible, long-term, and local. No vegetation manipulation or construction activities are proposed under Alternative A. No California condor habitat would be impacted, and no new sources of disturbance would be introduced with this alternative. Therefore, the No-Action Alternative would have no additional effects on California condors. Northern Goshawk: Existing developments on and near the Bright Angel Peninsula have resulted in the removal or modification of potential nesting and foraging habitat for the northern goshawk. Human activity at the North Rim, particularly on the Bright Angel Peninsula from mid-May to mid-October, also reduces the suitability of the area for nesting and foraging by goshawks. Existing development and human activity could have adverse, local, long-term, minor impacts on northern goshawks. No additional habitat would be modified under the No-Action Alternative, and this alternative would not have any additional effects on northern goshawks. Peregrine Falcon: The construction of existing developments on and near the Bright Angel Peninsula has affected potential habitat for peregrine prey. This local, adverse, long-term impact is negligible because the amount of habitat affected is negligible compared the amount of available habitat. Noise from year-round activities at the North Rim is unlikely to affect peregrines because no eyries are known from within 0.5 mile of the developments. Therefore, impacts of the continuation of current Park policies on peregrine falcons would be adverse, negligible, local, and long-term. No construction would take place under Alternative A, and this alternative would have no additional effects on peregrine falcons. Kaibab Squirrel: Existing developments on the Bright Angel Peninsula have resulted in the removal or modification of approximately 93 acres of ponderosa pine habitat. Although ponderosa pine habitat is widespread on the North Rim and the Kaibab Plateau, the developed area on the Bright Angel Peninsula contains the only ponderosa pine habitat in the Bright Angel Peninsula subwatershed. This loss of habitat thus constitutes a minor to moderate, local, adverse, long-term effect to Kaibab squirrels and the National Natural Landmark. No additional habitat would be modified under the No-Action Alternative, and this alternative would not have any additional effects on Kaibab squirrels. Cumulative Impacts: As described in the vegetation section of this Chapter, modification of habitat in the Bright Angel watershed subunit has occurred as a result of past and present activities and modification would result from implementation of future projects. In addition to the approximately 234 acres of habitat that have been impacted by existing development, modification of an additional 19 acres would occur as the result of foreseeable future development and construction-related projects in the North Rim developed area (Figure 2, Figure 4, Appendix G). All of these future projects would occur within the developed area of the North Rim and would be in, or in close proximity to, previously disturbed and developed areas. Up to approximately 120 - 150 large (greater than 12 inches dbh) ponderosa pine trees may need to be removed as a result of implementation of foreseeable future projects. Cumulative impacts would include decreased wildlife security, disturbance to adjacent habitat, and fragmentation in the North Rim developed area. These local, short- and long-term, adverse impacts would be minor because of the widespread availability of montane conifer habitat in the vicinity within the Bright Angel peninsula subwatershed. Cumulative impacts to vegetation as they relate to past and future fires and prescribed burns is as described above under Vegetation. Because of the widespread availability of montane conifer habitat within the Bright Angel watershed subunit and the fact that most of this is essentially undisturbed, cumulative impacts from implementation of past and future actions, combined with taking no action at this time, would be adverse, but minor and both short- and long-term. Impairment: Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to the wildlife resource would be negligible as a result of implementing the no action alternative. These impacts would not result in impairment. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of Grand Canyon National Park; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or (3) identified as a goal in the park s general management plan or other relevant National Park Service planning documents, there would be no impairment of Grand Canyon National Park s wildlife resources or park values. Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Direct/Indirect Impacts: Loss of habitat for proposed activities would likely have negligible, adverse, local, short- and long-term effects on wildlife populations. A direct loss of some individuals could occur during construction activities. However, the majority of small mammals, birds, and reptiles that are currently utilizing the habitat that is proposed for disturbance would be displaced to adjacent habitat. Vegetation disturbance could result in a loss of foraging habitat and cover for deer, turkey, voles/shrews, and breeding birds, but this likelihood is considered remote due to the small size of the disturbed areas and the fact that the work would be conducted in the existing developed area of the North Rim. Therefore, the action alternatives may impact individual Species of Interest, but, because of the small size of the project area and the implementation of mitigation measures, are not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of population viability for these species. In addition to loss of habitat, impacts of implementing the action alternatives would include decreased wildlife security, increased disturbance to adjacent habitat, and increased fragmentation. However, these adverse, long-term, local impacts would be negligible because they would occur in areas currently degraded because of high disturbance levels from existing developments, roads, utility corridors, and human use. Mexican Spotted Owl: No vegetation manipulation would occur below the rim and no activities related to increasing visitor use of the area below the rim are proposed. Therefore, the action alternatives would not result in any impacts to nesting or roosting habitat. Foraging habitat that would be affected is of marginal quality because of high disturbance levels from existing developments, roads, and human use. In addition, relative to the amount of available foraging habitat, the amount lost would be negligible. The loss of foraging habitat could result in a limited amount of prey base mortality. Woodrats, mice, and voles could be killed during construction activities. However, the majority of prey utilizing the habitat proposed for removal would be displaced to adjacent habitat and not killed. In addition, the change in prey base would be negligible because only a small area would be affected relative to available habitat for prey species. Spotted owls are unlikely to be affected by noise associated with construction activities because the nearest known PAC is more than 0.5 mile from the most of the project areas. Therefore, any action alternative would have a negligible, local, long-term, adverse impact to MSO. California Condor: The action alternatives would not result in any impacts to nesting or roosting habitat for the California condor because all such habitat occurs below the rim. No vegetation manipulation would occur below the rim, and no activities related to increasing visitor use of the area below the rim are proposed. Foraging habitat would not be affected because these alternatives would not change the availability of food sources for condors. The action alternatives could affect California condors through increased contact with humans during construction. Condors may be attracted by construction activities, and condor contact with humans would be of concern if the birds are harassed or become habituated to humans. Mitigation measures to cease construction activities if condors are present would reduce disturbance from construction activities on the birds. Hazing by permitted Park employees would ensure condors do not become habituated to humans. Because all activities proposed under the action alternatives would occur in areas of the North Rim that are already developed, use of the facilities should not have any long-term effects on the potential for interactions between condors and humans. Therefore, adverse impacts to condors would be short-term, local, and negligible. Northern Goshawk: Habitat modification would result from either action alternative, but the habitat that would be modified is of low quality because existing development has fragmented the habitat and resulted in human disturbance in the area throughout the goshawk breeding season. Noise disturbance as a result of construction activities could result, but would be negligible because these facilities are in an area that currently receives daily human disturbance during the breeding season. The nearest known goshawk territory is greater than 1 mile from the project area. Therefore, the effects of any of the action alternatives would be adverse, local, negligible, and both long- and short-term. Peregrine falcon: No peregrines are known to nest within 0.5 mile of the project area, and no direct effects on peregrine falcons are expected under any of the action alternatives. The action alternatives would remove or modify approximately 1  2 acres of potential habitat for peregrine falcon prey. However, this loss of habitat would be unlikely to affect peregrine falcons because the change in prey base would be negligible given the small area being affected relative to the available potential habitat for the prey base. The majority of the prey base utilizing the habitat proposed for removal would be displaced to adjacent habitat. Indirect adverse effects on peregrine falcons under any action alternative would be negligible, long-term, and local. Cumulative Impacts: As described in the vegetation section of this Chapter, modification of habitat in the Bright Angel watershed subunit has occurred as a result of past and present activities and modification would result from implementation of future projects. In addition to the approximately 234 acres of habitat that have been impacted by existing development, modification of an additional 19 acres would occur as the result of foreseeable future development and construction-related projects in the North Rim developed area (Figure 2, Figure 4, Appendix G). All of these future projects would occur within the developed area of the North Rim and would be in, or in close proximity to, previously disturbed and developed areas. Up to approximately 120 - 150 large (greater than 12 inches dbh) ponderosa pine trees may need to be removed as a result of implementation of foreseeable future projects. Cumulative impacts would include decreased wildlife security, disturbance to adjacent habitat, and fragmentation in the North Rim developed area. These local, short- and long-term, adverse impacts would be minor because of the widespread availability of montane conifer habitat in the vicinity within the Bright Angel peninsula subwatershed. Cumulative impacts to vegetation as they relate to past and future fires and prescribed burns is as described above under Vegetation. Because of the widespread availability of montane conifer habitat within the Bright Angel watershed subunit and the fact that most of this is essentially undisturbed, cumulative impacts from implementation of past and future actions, combined with past, present and future actions would be adverse, but minor and both short- and long-term. Mexican Spotted Owl: Ongoing activities at the North Rim create year-round disturbance in the vicinity. Past and present development has affected potential foraging habitat for MSO in the Bright Angel Peninsula sub-unit. This habitat alteration is unlikely to affect spotted owls because MSO are not known to use areas on the plateau (R.V.Ward, GRCA, pers. comm.) The Outlet Fire affected potential foraging habitat within the Bright Angel Peninsula subwatershed. The intensity of the fire varied, and the rate of vegetation recovery within the fire perimeter also varies. Because burned areas will recover, the effect of the fire is not considered a net loss of habitat. Prescribed fires are unlikely to affect MSO because none of these prescribed burn areas are in habitat known to be used by spotted owls, and low-intensity fires are not known to affect spotted owl presence or reproduction (Jenness 2000). No future activities are planned on the North Rim that would modify spotted owl critical habitat. Foreseeable future developments in the vicinity of the North Rim could modify potential foraging habitat and result in increased disturbance during construction. However, this additional modification of foraging habitat is unlikely to affect the spotted owl because foraging habitat in affected areas is of marginal quality as the result of the high level of existing development, roads, and human use. Any disturbances to MSO from noise associated with construction activities for this project or any foreseeable future projects would be minimized by mitigation measures such as those specified earlier in this document. The cumulative effects of any action alternative, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, on spotted owls in the Bright Angel Peninsula sub-unit would be negligible to minor, adverse, local, and long-term. California Condor: Ongoing activities at the North Rim create year-round disturbance in the vicinity and provide the potential for condor/human interactions. Foreseeable future developments at the North Rim would be primarily contained to existing developed areas and would not increase the long-term likelihood of condor/human interactions. Construction activities associated with the action alternatives and any future developments may attract condors. Mitigation measures, such as those included in this document, would reduce the potential for detrimental interactions between condors and humans for any of the action alternatives as well as any foreseeable future actions. The cumulative effects of any action alternative, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, on condors would be negligible, short- and long-term, local, and adverse. Northern Goshawk: Past and present development has altered goshawk nesting and foraging habitat in the Bright Angel Peninsula sub-unit and has created year-round human disturbance in the area. The area affected is minor compared to the amount of available montane conifer habitat in the vicinity. The Outlet Fire affected potential foraging and nesting habitat within the Bright Angel Peninsula subwatershed. The intensity of the fire varied, and the rate of vegetation recovery within the fire perimeter also varies. Because burned areas will recover, the effect of the fire is not considered a net loss of habitat. Burned areas also support prey species of the goshawk such as woodpeckers. Prescribed burning has been conducted within the watershed sub-unit since 1997 and is planned for additional areas in the next five years. Low-intensity burns are recommended in ponderosa pine and mixed conifer vegetation types to provide habitat for prey species and to reduce the incidence of catastrophic fire (Reynolds et al. 1992). Prescribed burns, therefore, may have minor, local, beneficial effects on northern goshawks. Foreseeable future developments in the vicinity of the North Rim could modify approximately 19 acres of potential foraging habitat and result in increased noise disturbance during construction. This additional modification of habitat is unlikely to affect the northern goshawk because habitat in affected areas is of marginal quality as the result of the high level of existing development, roads, and human use. The cumulative effects of any action alternative, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, on northern goshawks in the Bright Angel Peninsula sub-unit would be minor, adverse, local, and short- and long-term. Peregrine Falcon: The Outlet Fire affected approximately potential habitat for peregrine prey within the Bright Angel Peninsula subwatershed. The intensity of the fire varied, and the rate of vegetation recovery within the fire perimeter also varies. Because burned areas support potential peregrine prey and because these areas will recover, the effect of the fire is not considered a net loss of habitat. Prescribed burning has been conducted within the watershed sub-unit since 1997 and is planned in the next five years. Prescribed fires are generally of small size and low intensity and would not be expected to have measurable effects on the availability of peregrine prey species. In addition to the potential peregrine foraging habitat that has been affected by past development, 19 acres of potential foraging habitat would be affected at the North Rim by foreseeable future developments. None of the foreseeable future developments would affect nesting habitat below the rim or increase use of the area below the rim. The majority of the developments would occur in existing disturbed areas and would not measurably change prey base populations. Cumulative adverse impacts of any action alternative, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would therefore be negligible, local, and long-term. Kaibab Squirrel: The cumulative impact area for Kaibab squirrels was defined as ponderosa pine areas within the Bright Angel Peninsula subwatershed. In addition to the 93 acres of ponderosa pine habitat that have been affected by past and present developments at the North Rim, approximately 120-150 ponderosa pine >12 inches dbh could be removed by foreseeable future actions on approximately 19 acres. Any foreseeable future actions would occur in close proximity to previously disturbed areas. Cumulative effects of any action alternative, along with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions on Kaibab squirrels would be moderate, adverse, long-term, and local. Impairment: Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to the wildlife resource would be negligible as a result of implementing the no action alternative. These impacts would not result in impairment. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of Grand Canyon National Park; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or (3) identified as a goal in the park s general management plan or other relevant National Park Service planning documents, there would be no impairment of Grand Canyon National Park s wildlife resources or park values. Alternative B  Preferred Direct/Indirect Effects. Alternative B would result in less ground disturbed than Alternative C, since Alternative B does not include the construction of a new access road or parking area. No trees would be removed for Alternative B. This modification of wildlife habitat is substantially less than that estimated for Alternative C and has less potential Than Alternative C of impacting wildlife populations that may be using the area. Alternative B would result in negligible long- and short-term, local, adverse impacts to wildlife populations. Kaibab Squirrel: This alternative would not result in any live tree removal and would not impact foraging, nesting, or sheltering sites for Kaibab squirrels in the project aera. Construction activities could result in direct mortality of individuals but are more likely to cause displacement of Kaibab squirrels to adjacent habitat. However, the area that would be disturbed is in an area already disturbed by existing development and activity. Alternative B would have negligible, local, long-term, adverse effects on Kaibab squirrels. Section 7 Consultation: A detailed analysis of the expected effects of this project on Threatened and Endangered species is the subject of a separate Biological Assessment (NPS 2002). The potential for adverse impacts to federally listed species from implementation of the North Rim Administration Building, as identified in the preferred alternative, has been consulted on with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). USFWS concurred with the Park s determination that implementation of this project, along with many other construction projects in the Park over the next five years, may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Mexican spotted owl or the California condor or their habitat. Peregrine falcons were also discussed in this document (USFWS letter July 9, 2002). A brief description of the special status species applicable to this project is included in Appendix D. Alternative C  New Access Road Direct/Indirect Effects: Alternative C would result in the loss of approximately 20 - 25 ponderosa pine trees for the new access road and parking area. This level of tree removal is substantial when compared to Alternative B. This modification of habitat for wildlife is greater than that proposed for Alternative B and has a higher potential than Alternative B of impacting wildlife populations that may be using the area. However, these adverse, long-term, local impacts would be minor because they would occur in areas currently degraded because of high disturbance levels from existing developments, roads, utility corridors, and human use. Kaibab Squirrel: This alternative would result in the removal of 20 - 25 ponderosa pine trees > 6 inches dbh, some of which could provide foraging, nesting, and sheltering sites. Construction activities could result in direct mortality of individuals but are more likely to cause displacement of Kaibab squirrels to adjacent habitat. Because the area that would be disturbed is in an area already disturbed by existing developments and activities, Alternative C would have minor, local, long-term, adverse effects on Kaibab squirrels. Conclusions: The No Action alternative would not result in changes to general wildlife populations or special status species. Alternative B would result in negligible short-term impacts to general wildlife populations during construction and negligible to minor adverse long-term impacts to special status species. Alternative C would result in minor short-term impacts to general wildlife populations during construction and minor adverse long-term impacts to special status species. Cumulative long-term adverse impacts would be minor to moderate for general wildlife populations, negligible to minor for MSO, minor for condor, negligible for peregrine falcon, minor to moderate for goshawk and moderate for Kaibab squirrel. For purposes of Section 7 under the Endangered Species Act, Alternatives B and C may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect MSO and condor. FWS concurrence has been received on these determinations (July 9, 2002). CULTURAL RESOURCES Affected Environment Historic Resources Three historic districts on the North Rim are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (Figure 7). These include the Grand Canyon Inn (North Rim Inn) and Campground Historic District, the Grand Canyon North Rim Headquarters District, and the Grand Canyon Lodge Historic District, also designated as a national historical landmark. Of the three districts, only the North Rim Headquarters Historic District would be affected by project undertakings. Therefore, the following discussion only includes the North Rim Headquarters District. The North Rim Headquarters Historic District was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1982 (Chappell 1982b, see also Appendix F for a summary of the nomination). The headquarters area consists of two groupings of buildings. The easternmost grouping consists of several residences, a garage, and an administrative building. The westernmost grouping includes maintenance buildings, an administrative building, a barn, and more residences. Most of the buildings were constructed in the late 1920s and early 1930s (Chappell 1982b). The original headquarters building (Figure 8), for which this district was named, is the focus of the proposed project. The Headquarters District is approximately 12 acres in size and consists of multiple utilitarian buildings, several having features of rustic architectural design, scattered in intermittent clearings and meadows. The eastern group of structures within the district consists of residences, a garage and a ranger station. The western group consists of maintenance buildings, a resource management office, barn and several residences. Construction of the North Rim Headquarters began in 1926, with other structures added to the landscape in the late 1920 s and early 1930 s. Recent buildings added to the historic district include the existing headquarters office trailer (1983), two single family residences (1988), generator building and three single family residences (1990-1991), and four separate residential multi-plex buildings (1999) (T. Fields, GRCA, pers. comm. 2/01). The administration building is the focal point of the North Rim Headquarters District. Figure 7. Original North Rim Headquarters Building, Building #120 (NPS Photo by J.M. Eden, June 1949). Figure 8. Historic Districts on the North Rim, Grand Canyon National Park. Cultural Landscape Resources The Cultural Landscapes Inventory Professional Procedures Guide (Page 2001) prepared by the NPS defines cultural landscapes as:  settings that human beings have created in the natural world. They reveal fundamental ties between people and landpties based on our need to grow food, give form to our settlements, meet requirements for recreation, and find suitable places to bury our dead. Cultural landscapes are intertwined patterns of things both natural and constructed plants and fences, watercourses, and buildings. They range from formal gardens to cattle ranches, from cemeteries and pilgrimage routes to village squares. They are special placesbexpressions of human manipulation and adaptation of the land (Page 2001:1). A Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) is currently being prepared for the North Rim Bright Angel Peninsula Developed Area (OCULUS 2002). The purposes of the CLR are to identify, document, analyze, and evaluate contributing and non-contributing cultural landscape characteristics within the cultural landscape, and to provide specific recommendations and comprehensive vision for the landscape that can guide long-term management. Once completed, the CLR will serve as a supporting document for implementation of the GMP. The CLR addresses the North Rim Headquarters Historic District and offers some site treatment recommendations for the replacement of the existing building (draft CLR, pages V-25), including the following:  The proposed site of this project, located directly in the North Rim Headquarters National Register Historic District, presents some challenges. Historically, this area has been used for visitor services and administration. The form of this group of buildings was a tight grouping of structures centered around a small, loop-form parking lot, with walkway comprising a larger loop reaching the entrances of the buildings to the south. As discussed in the conference call, it is important for this historic cluster arrangement to be retained if at all possible. " It is recommended that if it remains in the historic location, the new building be sited and aligned with the other historic structures in the cluster. " The new building should be designed to retain as much as possible the location and orientation of the 1931 Administration Building s main entrance. " It is recommended that the majority of the new parking lot be added at the back of the building and not in the front, where it is out of scale and form with past parking on the site, overlays the footprint of the original building, and forces the new building to be sited outside the historic cluster. However, a small amount of parking (short-term spaces for instance) in front of the building would be in keeping with past use. Environmental Consequences Methodology The baseline information used to assess impacts to cultural resources is as described in the methodology section at the beginning of this chapter and includes park staff knowledge of the resources and site; review of existing literature and park studies; information provided by specialists within the National Park Service and other agencies; and professional judgement. Detailed information on natural and cultural resources in Grand Canyon National Park that is summarized in the 1995 GMP and associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was specifically referenced for information on affected resources in the project area. Additional sources of information on cultural resources used as a basis for this evaluation are as described above in the affected environment section. Historic Resources. The definitions for levels of impacts to historic structures or buildings are as follows: Negligible impact is barely measurable and has no perceptible consequences, either adverse or beneficial, to historic structures. For purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be no adverse effect. Minor Adverse  the character-defining feature(s) of a structure listed on or eligible for the National Register are not affected. For purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be no adverse effect. Beneficial  stabilization/preservation of the character-defining feature(s) in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to maintain the existing integrity of a structure. For purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be no adverse effect. Moderate Adverse  the character-defining feature(s) of the structure are altered but the integrity of the resource is not affected to the extent that its National Register eligibility is jeopardized. For purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be adverse effect. Beneficial  rehabilitation of a structure in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to make possible a compatible use of the property while preserving its character-defining features. For purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be no adverse effect. Major Adverse  the character-defining feature(s) of the structure are altered and the integrity of the resource is affected to the extent that its National Register eligibility is jeopardized. For purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be adverse effect. Beneficial  restoration in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to accurately depict the form, features, and character of a structure as it appeared during its period of significance. For purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be no adverse effect. Cultural Landscapes. The definitions for levels of impacts to cultural landscapes are as follows: Negligible impact is barely measurable and has no perceptible consequences, either adverse or beneficial, to cultural landscapes. For purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be no adverse effect. Minor Adverse  the character-defining feature(s) of a cultural landscape listed on or eligible for the National Register is/are not affected. For purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be no adverse effect. Beneficial  character-defining features are preserved in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior s standards to maintain existing integrity of the cultural landscape. For purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be no adverse effect. Moderate Adverse  the character-defining feature(s) of the cultural landscape is/are altered but the integrity of the resource is not affected to the extent that its National Register eligibility is jeopardized. For purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be adverse effect. Beneficial  a landscape or its features are rehabilitated in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior s standards to make possible a compatible use of the landscape while preserving its character-defining features. For purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be no adverse effect. Major Adverse  the character-defining feature(s) of the cultural landscape is/are altered and the integrity of the resource is affected to the extent that its National Register eligibility is jeopardized. For purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be adverse effect. Beneficial  a landscape or its features are restored in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior s standards to accurately depict the landscape as it appeared during its period of significance. For purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be no adverse effect. Alternative A  No Action Direct/indirect: The No Action Alternative would maintain the existing trailer in the Historic District and would rely on current road and parking facilities to accommodate visitors and administrative functions. The No Action Alternative would not result in direct effects to identified cultural resources on the North Rim, with the exception of the continued presence of the existing trailer that is incompatible with the surrounding Historic District. However, the cultural landscape, including the historic buildings and structures of the North Rim Headquarters Historic District would be protected to the greatest extent possible under existing NPS policies and the availability of Park staff and other support personnel to carry out maintenance. While the direct effects of taking no action at this time are limited, the continued presence of the trailer in the Historic District would result in a minor long-term adverse impact to cultural resources. Cumulative Impacts: The historic districts and the overall cultural landscape of the Bright Angel Peninsula have sustained previous impacts as the result of modifications to some historic buildings. Modern buildings have also intruded on the historic setting of the cultural landscape. Furthermore, previous deterioration of some buildings as a result of natural weathering and use has compromised defining architectural characteristics. Most of the foreseeable future projects that have the potential to affect cultural resources have been discussed with SHPO. Continued consultation with SHPO and using the treatment recommendations made in the CLR (OCULUS 2002) as the basis for future projects would ensure that any adverse effects of future projects on cultural resources would be negligible to minor. Keeping the current substandard administration building in place and not replacing it would continue to contribute negatively to the character of the historic district. Therefore, adverse cumulative effects as a result of past actions and future actions combined with taking no action at this time would be moderate, local, and long-term. Impairment: Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to cultural resources would be negligible to moderate as a result of implementing the no action alternative. These impacts would not result in impairment. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of Grand Canyon National Park; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or (3) identified as a goal in the Park s general management plan or other relevant National Park Service planning documents, there would be no impairment of Grand Canyon National Park s cultural resources or park values. Effects Common to Action Alternatives Direct/indirect: The North Rim administration building is the focal point of the North Rim Headquarters District. The existing trailer is not compatible with the Historic District. Removal of the trailer and replacement with a new building that is designed in keeping with the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Weeks 1995) to be distinctive yet compatible with the surrounding District, would result in a positive impact to the Historic District. The building design (Appendix C4), as described in Chapter 2, was developed to meet the purpose and need for the project while also considering its impact on the Historic District. The proposed design has been determined by the NPS not to be an adverse impact to the District. Consultation with the SHPO is on-going and will be completed prior to a decision being made on this project. This proposed building design would be the same for either of the action alternatives. Building Design Elements of the building were designed for the typical snow accumulations in the local area such as metal roofing and steep roof slope with long overhangs. The use of a non-wood base is also practical for minimizing snow problems around the building and is one option under consideration. The board and batten siding, metal roofing, and the use of surfaced lumber for beams, rafters and columns, were selected to tie the building into existing architecture on the North Rim. The use of larger windows was selected to express the office use of the building and to provide a more contemporary appearance. Therefore, the design seeks to reflect a functional contemporary building system while still being compatible with the existing rustic architecture and the historic district context. Cumulative: The historic districts and the overall cultural landscape of the Bright Angel Peninsula have sustained previous impacts as the result of modifications to some historic buildings. Modern buildings have also intruded on the historic setting of the cultural landscape. Furthermore, previous deterioration of some buildings as a result of natural weathering and use has compromised defining architectural characteristics. Most of the foreseeable future projects that have the potential to affect cultural resources have been discussed with SHPO. Continued consultation with SHPO and using the treatment recommendations made in the CLR (OCULUS 2002) as the basis for future projects would ensure that any adverse effects of future projects on cultural resources would be negligible to minor. Therefore, adverse cumulative effects would be moderate, local, and long-term. Under the action alternatives, beneficial cumulative effects would be moderate, long-term, and site-specific. Impairment: Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to cultural resources would be negligible to moderate as a result of implementing either of the action alternatives. These impacts would not result in impairment. Because there would be no major adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of Grand Canyon National Park; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or (3) identified as a goal in the Park s general management plan or other relevant National Park Service planning documents, there would be no impairment of Grand Canyon National Park s cultural resources or park values. Alternative B  Preferred Direct/Indirect: This alternative would remove the existing trailer that is having an adverse impact on the surrounding Historic District and construct a new building on the old building footprint. This alternative would minimize new ground disturbance and maintain the historic use patterns of the area. The building itself would be constructed in the same general location as the historic building and would continue to be the focus of the Historic District. Minor changes would be made to the existing parking area to increase its functionality and accommodate more vehicles. These changes would not result in any substantial modification of the parking area size or layout. The historic traffic patterns to and from this area would remain unchanged. Maintaining the existing parking area in its current location and replacing the existing building in essentially the same place would result in less of an impact to cultural resources than would Alternative C. Alternative B goes further than Alternative C in addressing the recommendations made in the draft CLR (see summary on page 49) by retaining the location and orientation of the 1931 Administration Building main entrance, by sighting and aligning the building with other buildings in the cluster, and retaining the parking in its current location in keeping with past use. For these reasons, including the removal of the existing incompatible structure, implementation of Alternative B would result in a moderate long-term beneficial impact to cultural resources. Minor adverse impacts to cultural resources would result during construction until the new building is in place, but these impacts would be site-specific and short-term. Section 106 Summary After applying the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation s criteria for adverse effects (36 CFR, Part 800.5, Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National Park Service concludes that implementation of Alternative B would result in a  no adverse effect to identified historic properties determination. Alternative C  New Access Road Direct/Indirect: Alternative C would result in a substantial change to the Historic District by creating a new access road into a new parking area and bringing visitors into the building from a different angle. Like Alternative B, the building itself would be constructed in the same general location as the historic building and would continue to be the focus of the Historic District. However, Alternative C would eliminate visitor traffic along the current road and would therefore disrupt the historic traffic patterns in this area. While Alternative C addresses one of the recommendations in the draft CLR (see page 49) by sighting the building with other buildings in the historic cluster, it does not address the recommendation to maintain the orientation of the 1931 Administration Building s main entrance (Alternative C would turn the building around and would face it  out of the District). While maintaining administrative parking in the existing lot (the front of building) is in keeping with the recommendations, construction of a new parking area for visitors and using a new entrance road to access the building would not. For these reasons, including the removal of the existing incompatible structure, implementation of Alternative C would result in a minor long-term adverse impact to cultural resources. While beneficial impacts from removing the existing building and replacing it with a sensitively designed and functional building would result, they would likely be outweighed by the adverse impacts of the new building alignment and the new access road and parking. Minor adverse impacts to cultural resources would also result during construction until the new building is in place, but these impacts would be site-specific and short-term. Section 106 Summary After applying the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation s criteria for adverse effects (36 CFR, Part 800.5, Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National Park Service concludes that implementation of Alternative C would result in an  adverse effect to identified historic properties determination. Conclusions: The No-Action Alternative would have minor, adverse, long-term, effects to cultural resources through the continued presence of the existing trailer. Alternative B would result in a moderate beneficial long-term impact to cultural resources through the replacement of the trailer with a sensitively designed building and maintenance of historic use areas and traffic patterns. Alternative C would result in an overall moderate adverse effect to cultural resources due to the construction of a new access road and parking area in the Historic District and changing the alignment of the administration building. Beneficial impacts would result due to the replacement of the trailer with a sensitively designed building, but these would be outweighed by the adverse impacts of other project components. Future construction projects within or adjacent to Historic Districts would be developed in consultation with SHPO, NPS architects and cultural resource staff to ensure the facilities are in keeping with the Secretary s Standards, and do not intrude on the district nor diminish the district s character-defining qualities. Facilities would be designed to be distinctive but compatible with the affected district. In other words, facilities would have their own unique design that is, at the same time, appropriate and fitting for their location within or adjacent to Historic Districts. Consequently, minor cumulative adverse impacts to historic resources from implementation of any of the alternatives would be expected. After applying the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation s criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment of Adverse Effects), the National Park Service concludes that implementation of Alternative B would have no adverse effect to identified historic properties, while Alternative C would result in an adverse effect to historic properties. VISITOR EXPERIENCE Affected Environment Approximately 10 percent of visitation to the Grand Canyon occurs at the North Rim (NPS 2002). Visitors to the North Rim encounter less traffic congestion and parking problems than visitors to the South Rim, and the North Rim provides a more leisurely pace and a more traditional park experience than the South Rim. All visitors to the Bright Angel peninsula of the North Rim pass through Jacob Lake, at the junction of Arizona 67, where the U.S. Forest Service operates a visitor contact station. Information on Grand Canyon National Park and Kaibab National Forest is available at this station. At the North Rim entrance station to the Park, each vehicle receives an official park brochure along with a copy of the North Rim edition of the park newspaper. The only other staffed interpretive facility on the North Rim is the Visitor Center, located adjacent to the Grand Canyon Lodge. The administrative building is not a visitor center and the conducting of administrative functions is its primary purpose. However, one exception to this is the backcountry permit office that is currently housed in this building and would be housed in the proposed new building. Backcountry users or those seeking information on backcountry permits would continue to require access to this building. This administrative building is the primary site for integral administrative staff and functions of the North Rim, including conducting business with park partners and others (concessioners, contractors, etc.). Visitors also come to the administrative building with questions for park staff, orientation needs, and general information. The existing building is inadequate for providing the current and future needs of the backcountry permit office. Deficiencies have also been identified on the access road into the building. Conflicts between visitors and administrative users sometimes occur in the parking area and on the roads accessing administrative and residential areas. Improvements in the ease at which visitors and those conducting business with the North Rim can safely and effectively access the building are needed. Environmental Consequences Methodology The baseline information used to assess impacts to visitor experience is as described in the methodology section at the beginning of this chapter and includes park staff knowledge of the resources and site; review of existing literature and park studies; information provided by specialists within the National Park Service and other agencies; and professional judgement. Detailed information on visitor use in Grand Canyon National Park that is summarized in the 1995 GMP and associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was specifically referenced for information on affected resources in the project area. Additional sources of information on visitor experience used as a basis for this evaluation are as described above in the affected environment section. The thresholds of change for the intensity of an impact on visitor experience are defined as follows: Negligible  the impact is barely detectable, and/or will affect few visitors. Minor  the impact is slight but detectable, and/or will affect some visitors. Moderate  the impact is readily apparent and/or will affect many visitors. Major  the impact is severely adverse or exceptionally beneficial and/or will affect the majority of visitors. Alternative A - No Action Direct/Indirect Impacts: Under the No-Action Alternative, existing facilities and policies would remain in place. No changes would occur to the administration building or the surrounding area. Traffic congestion within the parking area would occur during peak season. The existing trailer would continue to decline in condition and would not meet adequately meet the needs of visitors or the current program. Therefore, continuation of existing conditions would pose long-term minor adverse impacts to visitor experience at the North Rim Administration building. Cumulative Impacts: Of the foreseeable future projects at the North Rim, construction of the emergency services/wildland fire facility, replacement of the helibase support facility, preservation treatments of the exposed frame cabins, rehabilitation of the campground, and upgrades to the water distribution system would occur in 2003, even if the administration building is not replaced. Installation of fire sprinklers and rehabilitation of the firing range would also occur during 2003, but these activities would not affect areas used by visitors. Multiple construction projects, even if no action were taken at this time on the administration building, would result in visible construction activities in several areas and increased traffic from construction vehicles. None of the projects will restrict visitor movements or affect the highest use areas (lodge and rim). All construction activities would be restricted to daylight hours and would not occur on weekends or holidays unless otherwise approved by the Park. Short-term cumulative impacts to the visitor experience would be adverse, moderate, and local. Information regarding implementation of other foreseeable future projects would be shared with the public upon their entry into the park during construction periods. This may take the form of an informational brochure or flyer about the projects distributed at the gate and sent to those with reservations at park facilities, postings on the park s website, press releases, and/or other methods. The purpose of these efforts would be to minimize the potential for negative impacts to the visitor experience on the North Rim during implementation of this project and other planned projects during the same construction season. Many of the future projects are designed to benefit the visitor experience through upgrades to existing facilities (e.g., campground, parking, and orientation exhibits) and installation of new facilities (e.g., restrooms) where needed. Therefore, combining past and foreseeable future projects, long-term cumulative effects on the visitor experience would be beneficial, moderate, and local. Impacts Common to Both Action Alternatives B and C Direct/Indirect: Under any action alternative, replacement of the existing trailer with a larger building would be beneficial to visitors. This new building would be designed to better accommodate the backcountry permit office, those conducting business with the North Rim and visitors seeking information from the administrative staff. The increase in size of the building and having a building that is sensitively designed for the area would all result in a benefit to the visitor experience. The addition of a porch should benefit those accessing the permit office and would provide shelter during inclement weather. The overall improvement in park operation is expected to result in an improvement in the quality of the visitor experience to the North Rim. Construction noise and increased construction activity within the headquarters area would impact visitors, but would be minimized by the fact that this area is primarily residential and adminstrative. These effects would be minimized by limiting construction activities to 8:00 am to 6:00 pm in the summer (May 1- September 30) and to 9:00 am to 5:00 pm during the rest of the year. Effects of construction activities on visitor experience would occur only during the construction period. Adverse impacts to visitors would be local, short-term, and minor. Cumulative Impacts: Of the foreseeable future projects at the North Rim, construction of the emergency services/wildland fire facility, replacement of the helibase support facility, preservation treatments of the exposed frame cabins, rehabilitation of the campground, and upgrades to the water distribution system would occur in 2003, concurrently with construction of the administrative building. Installation of fire sprinklers and rehabilitation of the firing range would also occur during 2003, but these activities would not affect areas used by visitors. Multiple construction projects would result in visible construction activities in several areas and increased traffic from construction vehicles. None of the projects will restrict visitor movements or affect the highest use areas (lodge and rim). All construction activities would be restricted to daylight hours and would not occur on weekends or holidays unless otherwise approved by the Park. Short-term cumulative impacts to the visitor experience would be adverse, moderate, and local. Information regarding implementation of this project and other foreseeable future projects would be shared with the public upon their entry into the park during construction periods. This may take the form of an informational brochure or flyer about the projects distributed at the gate and sent to those with reservations at park facilities, postings on the park s website, press releases, and/or other methods. The purpose of these efforts would be to minimize the potential for negative impacts to the visitor experience on the North Rim during implementation of this project and other planned projects during the same construction season. Many of the future projects are designed to benefit the visitor experience through upgrades to existing facilities (e.g., campground, parking, and orientation exhibits) and installation of new facilities (e.g., restrooms) where needed. Therefore, long-term cumulative effects on the visitor experience would be beneficial, moderate, and local. Alternative B  Preferred Direct/Indirect: Under Alternative B, the existing parking area would be modified somewhat to increase the number of parking spaces and improve the flow of traffic in this area. This should result in improvements in vehicle conflicts in this area and allow for more parking opportunities during the busiest times of the year. Site improvements include providing parking spaces designed for recreational vehicles and large trucks and providing more room so they can safety turn around. Some parking spaces currently in front of the bunkhouse would be moved around the corner to reduce congestion in the parking area and improve line of sights in the central parkin area. Alternative C, however, goes further than Alternative B in separating visitor, administrative and residential traffic. Implementation of this alternative would result in some improvements, but would not reduce the conflicts that sometimes arise on the road into the residential area and in the parking area. Implementation of Alternative B would result in minor long-term beneficial impacts to visitor experience. Minor adverse impacts during the construction period would result but these would be site-specific and short-term. Alternative C  New Access Road Direct/Indirect: Under Alternative C, a new access road and parking area for the administration building would be constructed. This proposal was designed to improve visitor experience in this area by reducing vehicle conflicts between visitors, park personnel and residents in the headquarters area. Aside from short term minor adverse effects during the construction period, long term moderate beneficial effects to visitor experience would result from Alternative C. Increases in available parking and improvements in access to the building would result in beneficial impacts to visitors, particularly those inquiring about backcountry permits. Conclusions: Implementing Alternative A would generally keep visitor experience as it is currently. Implementation of either action alternative would result in a long-term minor beneficial improvement in visitor experience by construction of a new administration building, including improved backcountry permitting functions. Implementing Alternative B would result in minor beneficial impacts to visitor experience by modifying the existing parking area to create more parking spaces and to improve traffic flow. Implementing Alternative C would result in moderate beneficial impacts to visitors by creating a new access road and parking area to the administration building. Short-term minor adverse impacts to visitor experience may occur during implementation of either Alternative B or C during construction. Moderate long-term beneficial cumulative impacts are expected due to the continued implementation of other projects that are designed to improve park facilities and consolidate park functions. Moderate short-term adverse cumulative impacts are also expected from implementation of either action alternative as a result of multiple construction projects being implemented during the same season on the North Rim. Implementation of mitigation measures, as described above, would minimize this adverse impact. PARK OPERATIONS Affected Environment Park operations refer to the adequacy of staffing levels and the quality and effectiveness of the park infrastructure in protecting and preserving vital resources and providing for an effective visitor experience. Infrastructure facilities include the roads that are used to provide access to and within the park (both administrative and visitor use), housing for staff required to work and live in the park, visitor orientation facilities (visitor centers, developed and interpreted sites, and other interpretive features), administrative buildings (office and workspace for park staff), management support facilities (garages, shops, storage buildings, and yards used to house and store maintenance equipment, tools, and materials), and utilities such as phones, sewer, water, and electric. As recognized in the 1995 GMP, and described briefly previously in this document, the backcountry offices in the headquarters (administrative) building on the North Rim is located at the entrance to the housing and administrative area. The EIS for the 1995 states the following (page 180 of Area Operations section):  This location creates frequent conflict between backcountry users who are getting permits and orientation, and administrative functions in the headquarters building. Because the lobby is too small, often people have to wait outside in the parking area for orientation procedures. The administrative headquarters building is near the historic maintenance complex and housed in a modular trailer-type structure. This space is too small for current operations, and more offices and training/meeting rooms are needed. Park staff is responsible for maintenance of facilities within the headquarters area and other developed areas of the North Rim. Environmental Consequences Methodology Impacts to park operations focus on (1) employee and visitor health and safety, (2) ability to protect and preserve resources, (3) staff size, whether staffing needs to be increased or decreased, (4) existing and needed facilities, (5) communication (e.g., telephones, radio, computers, etc.), and (6) appropriate utilities (sewer, electric, water). Park staff knowledge was used to evaluate the impacts of each alternative and is based on the current description of park operations presented in the Affected Environment section of this document. Definitions for levels of impacts to park operations efficiency are as follows: Negligible  a change in operations that is not measurable or perceptible. Minor  a change in operations that is slight and localized with few measurable consequences. Moderate  readily apparent changes to park operations with measurable consequences. Major  a severely adverse or exceptionally beneficial change in park operations. Alternative A - No Action Direct/Indirect Impacts: Under the No-Action Alternative, maintenance of current facilities and infrastructure would continue. Indirect impacts would include the increased maintenance required as the existing trailer ages and continues to deteriorate. Implementing Alternative A would keep the trailer used for the administration building in its current location and would not allow for an increase in capacity of the building for current needs. Alternative A would also keep the existing parking area in its current condition and would not accommodate increases in parking spaces or changes in traffic flow or traffic patterns in this area. These impacts would be moderate, local, long-term, and adverse. Cumulative Impacts: All of the foreseeable future actions are designed to have long-term, beneficial impacts on park operations through upgrades to existing facilities, such as roads and buildings. Under the no-action alternative, maintenance requirements would increase in the administration building and the existing parking area as these continue to deteriorate from weather and age. Implementing the other foreseeable actions, however, would result in positive improvements in facilities and park operational efficiency. Combining taking no action at the time with past and foreseeable projects would result in minor to moderate long-term beneficial impacts to park operations. ed with all of the other foreseeable actions, these impacts would be local, adverse, and minor to moderate. Short-term adverse minor impacts could occur during future project implementation, even if the administration building were not replaced, due to implementing multiple projects during one construction season. Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Direct/Indirect Effects. Replacement of the trailer with a new building would support the increased needs of the park operation on the North Rim. The new building would accommodate current needs for additional office space, meeting rooms and backcountry permitting. Construction of a new building and removal of the old one would require less maintenance than the existing facility. Improvements in the parking area under either action alternative would result in fewer vehicle conflicts in the headquarters area and would improve availability of parking and improve traffic flow in the area. While Alternative C goes further than Alternative B in separately visitor traffic from administrative and residential traffic, either alternative would result in moderate, long-term, local, beneficial effects on park operations. Cumulative Impacts. All of the foreseeable future actions are designed to have long-term, beneficial impacts on park operations through upgrades to facilities such as the administrative building, housing, offices, utilities, and other infrastructure. These impacts would be local and moderate. Construction activities could have short-term, adverse impacts through disruptions in traffic patterns, utility services, and availability of office space. These impacts would be local and minor to moderate. Use of a separate construction inspector while multiple construction projects are being implemented would minimize the adverse impact to park operations during busy construction periods. Conclusions. The No-Action alternative would result in moderate, local, long-term, adverse effects on park operations, while either of the action alternatives (Alternatives B or C) would have moderate, long-term, local, beneficial effects on park operations. Chapter 4  List of Preparers Prepared By: Deborah Lutch, Natural Resource Specialist - Project Management Team, Grand Canyon National Park NPS staff contributing information to the preparation of this document includes: Grand Canyon National Park Project Management Team  Flagstaff, AZ Shelley Mettlach, Fee Demo Program Manager Greg MacGregor, Project Manager Harold Gibbs, former Fee Demo Program Manager Gigi Wright, Graphics Robert Powell, Historical Architect Susan Weaver, Cultural Resource Specialist Science Center  Grand Canyon, AZ Janet Balsom, Cultural Resources Manager Jeffrey Cross, Science Center Division Chief R.V. Ward, Wildlife Biologist Elaine Leslie, Wildlife Biologist John Rihs, Hydrologist Rachel Stanton, Restoration Biologist Carl Bowman, Air Quality Specialist Sara White, Compliance Officer Jill Beshears, Compliance Specialist Dan Spotskey, Geographic Information Systems North Rim Unit  Grand Canyon, AZ Phillip Walker, Unit Manager Jim Boucher, Facilities Manager Mark McCutcheon, District Ranger Kevin Cochary, former District Ranger Administration  Grand Canyon, AZ Don Singer, Safety Officer Robin White, former Accessibility Coordinator Maintenance  Grand Canyon, AZ John Beshears, Chief of Maintenance Denver Service Center  Denver, CO Paul Cloyd, Project Manager Al Thorton, Architect Robert Pilk, Landscape Architect Chapter 5  Consultation with Others Public Involvement The NPS sent a public scoping letter, describing several North Rim project proposals, to a mailing list of approximately 300 people on 8 December 2000. This letter was also posted on the park s website and discussed at the 11 January 2001 Grand Canyon community meeting. A notification and short article on north rim project proposals was published in the Williams/Grand Canyon newspaper, in the January 3-9, 2001 edition. Seven responses to this scoping effort were received. These included the National Tour Association who expressed their support for this project; Five County Association of Governments who expressed support for improvements in visitor facilities and recommended further information-sharing; U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service who provided a species list; Zuni Heritage and Historic Preservation Office who provided no specific comment; Western Office of the National Trust for Historic Preservation who requested information on historic resources; and the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians who expressed their strong interest in participation in planning for North Rim projects as early as possible and provided additional comments pertinent to a visitor center, but not to the administration building. Arizona Game and Fish Department NPS staff met with personnel from AGFD on 13 December 2000 to discuss this project proposal and other future proposals. A list of species of concern for the North Rim was discussed at this meeting. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NPS staff met with personnel from USFWS on 13 December 2000 to discuss this project proposal and other future proposals. A list of species of concern for projects at the North Rim was discussed at this meeting. NPS staff met with USFWS several times between March and June 2002 to discuss this project proposal in conjunction with a batch consultation for several construction projects throughout the Park. Concurrence on the batch consultation was received from USFWS on 9 July 2002 and indicated that the projects may affect but are not likely to adversely affect the Mexican spotted owl and the California condor. Tribal Groups The NPS sent scoping letters on 8 December 2000 to eight tribal groups. Although nine tribal groups have interests in the Park, only eight ask to be consulted on projects outside the river corridor. State Historic Preservation Office NPS staff met with the Arizona SHPO during a field trip to the North Rim in August 2000 to discuss multiple North Rim projects, including those discussed in this document. This project was also discussed during a quarterly coordination meeting between NPS staff and SHPO on 16 October 2002 and 20 February 2003. The SHPO was notified during these coordination meetings that the Park intends to meet Section 106 responsibilities through preparation of a combined EA/AEF. EA/AEF Distribution A written notification of the availability of the EA/AEF for this project was submitted to the approximately 300-person park mailing list. The following groups received a hard copy of the EA/AEF for a 30 day public review and comment period. Arizona Game and Fish Department  Phoenix Office Arizona Game and Fish Department  Flagstaff Office Sedona Public Library Washington Country Library (St. George, Utah) Fredonia Public Library Flagstaff Public Library Grand Canyon Community Library Phoenix Public Library Williams Public Library Northern Arizona University Cline Library Kanab City Library U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service  Phoenix Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service  Flagstaff Office Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Navajo Nation Pueblo of Zuni Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians Havasupai Tribe Hualapai Tribe Hopi Tribe San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe SELECTED REFERENCES Executive Orders Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice) Executive Order 13186 (Migratory Birds) NPS Director s Orders DO-2 Planning Process Guidelines DO-12 Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis and Decision Making DO-28 Cultural Resource Management DO-47 Sound Preservation and Noise Management DO-65 Explosives Use and Blasting Safety NPS-77 Natural Resources Management Guideline DO-77-1 Wetland Protection DO-13 Environmental Leadership (DRAFT) US Federal Government and State Government 36 CFR 800.11 40 CFR, Part 503 1864 Act of Congress (13 Stat. 325) 1890 Act of Congress (26 Stat. 650) 1906 Joint Resolution of Congress (34 Stat. 831) 1955 Federal Air Quality Law 1963 Clean Air Act, as amended 1964 Wilderness Act 1966 National Historic Preservation Act 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 1973 Endangered Species Act, as amended 1977 Clean Water Act 1979 Archeological Resources Protection Act 1984 Archaeological Resources of Grand Canyon National Park (Multiple Resources Partial Inventory: Prehistoric and Historic Archaeological Sites, Historic and Architectural Properties. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Grand Canyon National Park. 1988 Storm Water Management for Construction Activities: Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices. Office of Water, EPA 832R 92005. Washington, DC. 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 1995 Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Operation of Glen Canyon Dam, Colorado River Storage Project: Coconino County, Arizona. U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 1995 Draft General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Grand Canyon National Park. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center. 1995 Final General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Grand Canyon National Park. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center. 1995 General Management Plan, Grand Canyon National Park. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center. 1995 Record of Decision for General Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement. Grand Canyon National Park. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center. On file at Denver Service Center. 1995  Programmatic Agreement among the National Park Service, the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. 1995 K. D. Weeks and A. E. Grimmer. Secretary of the Interior s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, with guidelines for preserving, rehabilitating, restoring and reconstructing historic buildings. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Heritage Preservation Services, Washington, D.C. 1995 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Interior. Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 172pp. 1996 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Establishment of a Nonessential, experimental population of California condors in Northern Arizona. Federal Register, October 16, 1996. Volume 61, Number 201, pages 54043-54060. 1999 Value Analysis in the National Park Service. NPS  Denver Service Center. Draft Version 6/4/98. 1999 Value Analyses Report, North Rim Visitor Services/Administrative Building, prepared for Grand Canyon National Park by NPS Denver Service Center, November 1999. 1999 Pre-Design Package 025, North Rim Visitor Services/Administrative Building, prepared for Grand Canyon National Park by NPS Denver Service Center, November 1999. 2000 Management Services  Value Analysis/Value Assessment Inventory. U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center. Draft Version 11/2/00. 1999 Letter from USDI Fish and Wildlife Service to National Park Service regarding North Rim projects at Grand Canyon National Park (Administration Building and Campground Rehabilitation) which referenced and attached a Coconino Country threatened and endangered species list. Consultation number 2-21-00-I-107. January 14, 2000. 2000 Letter from Arizona Game and Fish Department to National Park Service regarding North Rim projects at Grand Canyon National Park (Administration Building and Campground Rehabilitation) which referenced and listed special status species occurring in the project vicinity.January 24, 2000. 2000 Letter from Arizona State Historic Preservation Office to Grand Canyon National Park received August 3, 2000 and indicated concurrence with a preliminary adverse effect determination to the historic district made by the park s historic architect. 2000 Letter from Arizona State Historic Preservation Office to Grand Canyon National Park providing informal review of building projects. March 22, 2000. 2000 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Mexican Spotted owl: Federal Register, July 21, 2000. Volume 65, number 141, pages 45336-45353. 2001 National Park Service Management Policies. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Washington, D.C. 2001 National Park Service (NPS). Environmental Assessment/Assessment of Effect: Desert View housing and management support, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. 2002 National Park Service (NPS). Visitation counts by gate and mode of travel. [Online]. Available: http://www.nps.gov/grca/facts/chart-2000s.pdf. Accessed 17 September 2002. 2002 Biological Assessment  Parkwide Construction Program; Batch Consultation. National Park Service, Grand Canyon National Park. June 10, 2002. 2002 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Letter from David Harlow, Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office to Superintendent, Grand Canyon National Park, indicating concurrence with the Park s determination of may affect, not likely to adversely affect Mexican spotted owl, California condor, bald eagle, and sentry milk vetch for implementation of the park s parkwide construction program between 2002 and 2006. July 9, 2002. 2003 National Park Service (NPS). Environmental Assessment/Assessment of Effect: North Rim Emergency Services/Wildland Fire Facility and Preservation Treatments of Exposed Frame Cabins, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. Literature Cited Arizona Game and Fish Department. 1996. Wildlife of special concern in Arizona (Public Review Draft). Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Heritage Data Management Systems. 2000. Element Occurrence Records for Grand Canyon National Park. Phoenix, AZ. December. Brian, N. J. 2000. A Field Guide to the Special Status Plants of Grand Canyon National Park. Science Center, Grand Canyon National Park, Grand Canyon, Arizona. Brown, D. E. 1994. Biotic Communities - Southwestern United States and Northwestern New Mexico. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Camp, Phil. 2002. Personal communication (via electronic mail) between Phil Camp, Natural Resources Conservation Service to Cole Crocker-Bedford, Grand Canyon National Park, regarding prime and unique farmlands in Grand Canyon National Park. November 11. Chapell, G. 1982a. National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination Form: North Rim Inn and Campground Historic District. National Park Service, Western Regional Office, San Francisco. Chapell, G. 1982b. National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination Form: North Rim Headquarters Historic District. National Park Service, Western Regional Office, San Francisco. Euler, R.G. 1975. Archaeology of Bright Angel Point, Grand Canyon National Park. Master s Thesis on file at Grand Canyon National Park. Federal Register. 1996a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Plant and Animal Taxa That are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species. Federal Register, February 28, 1996, Volune 61, Number 40, Page 7596-7613. Federal Register. 1996b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of California Condors in Northern Arizona. Federal Register, October 16, 1996, Volume 61, Number 201, Page 54043-54060. Freeman, L. H. and S. L. Jenson. 1998. How to write quality EIS s and EA s. Shipley Environmental, Inc. through Franklin Covey. Bountiful, UT. Ganey, J.L., and J.L. Dick, Jr. 1995. Habitat relationships of the Mexican spotted owl: current knowledge. Chapter 4 in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Mexican spotted owl recovery plan, volume II. Halloran, M.E., and M. Bekoff. 1994. Nesting behavior of Abert squirrels, Sciurus aberti. Ethology 97: 236-248. Abstract available online at http://spot.colorado.edu/~halloran/nest.html. Accessed 13 March 2002. Harrison, L.S. 1986. National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination Form: Grand Canyon Lodge Historic District. National Park Service, Western Regional Office, San Francisco. Hoffmeister, D.F. 1986. Mammals of Arizona. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona. Huntoon, P. W. (no date). The ground water systems that drain to the Grand Canyon of Arizona. Laramie, Wyoming: University of Wyoming, Water Resources Division. Jenness, J.S. 2000. The effects of fire on Mexican spotted owls in Arizona and New Mexico. M.S. Thesis, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona. Available: http://www.jennessent.com/Literature/Thesis. Kohnke, H. and D. P. Franzmeier. 1995. Soil Science Simplified. Waveland Press, Inc. Latta, M.J., C.J. Beardmore, and T.E. Corman. 1999. Arizona Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Version 1.0. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 142. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. MacDonald, L. H. 1998. Analyzing Cumulative Effects: Issues and Guidelines (DRAFT). Department of Earth Resources, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO. Unpublished. Mejia, J.R. 1997. Sciurus aberti species account. University of Michigan, Museum of Zoology, Animal Diversity Web, [Online]. Available: http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/sciurus/s._aberti$narrative.html. Accessed 5 March 2002. Nash, D.J., and R.N. Seaman. 1977. Sciurus aberti. Mammalian species, No. 80. The American Society of Mammalogists. 5 pp. National Park Service (NPS). 1991. Natural Resources Management Guideline, NPS-77. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2001. DRAFT Soil Survey of Grand Canyon Area Arizona, Parts of Mohave and Coconino Counties. U. S. Department of Agriculture. OCULUS. 2002. North Rim Bright Angel Peninsula Developed Area, Grand Canyon National Park: Cultural Landscape Report, 70% draft. Prepared by OCULUS Landscape Architects, Charlottesville, Virginia. Page, R.R. 2001. Cultural Landscapes Inventory Professional Procedures Guide. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship Partnerships, Park Historic Structures and Cultural Landscapes Program, Washington, D.C. Peregrine Fund. 2002. Information extracted from  Notes from the Field . Available on Internet @ http://www.peregrinefund.org/notes_condor.html Phillips, B. G., A. M. Phillips III, and M. A. Schmidt-Bernzott. 1987. Annotated Checklist of Vascular Plants of Grand Canyon National Park. Monograph 7. Grand Canyon, AZ. Grand Canyon Natural History Association. Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, Jr., G. Goodwin, R. Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-217. 90 pp. Rosenstock, S.S. 1996. Habitat relationships of breeding birds in Northern Arizona ponderosa pine and pine-oak forests. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Technical Report #23. Phoenix, Arizona. Spotskey, D.B., and D. Bertolette. 2000. North Rim vegetation and fuels mapping. Internal NPS report, Grand Canyon National Park. Spotskey, D.B., and D.A. Willey. 2000. Grand Canyon National Park predicted Mexican spotted owl habitat. Draft 8-2000. National Park Service and U.S. Geological Survey. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000. Peregrine Falcon. [Online]. Available: http://endangered.fws.gov/i/b/sab22.html. Ward, J.P., Jr., and W.M. Block. 1995. Mexican spotted owl prey ecology. Chapter 5 in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Mexican spotted owl recovery plan, volume II. Warren, P.L., K.L. Reichhardt, D.A. Mouat, B.T. Brown, and R.R. Johnson. 1982. Vegetation of Grand Canyon National Park. Technical Report No. 9, Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. Weeks, K. D. 1995. The Secretary of the Interior s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties: with guidelines for preserving, rehabilitating, restoring, and reconstructing historic buildings. Willey, D.W. 1995. Mexican spotted owls in canyonlands of the Colorado Plateau. In E.T. LaRoe, G.S. Farris, C.E. Puckett, P.D. Doran, and M.J. Mac, eds. Our living resources: A report to the Nation on the distribution, abundance, and health of U.S. plants, animals, and ecosystems. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Service, Washington, D.C. Willey, D. W. 1995.  Mexican Spotted Owls in Canyonlands of the Colorado Plateau. In Our Living resources: A report to the Nation on the Distribution, Abundance, and Health of U.S. Plants, Animals, and Ecosystems, edited by E.T. LaRoe, G.S. Farris, C.E. Puckett, P.D. Doran, and M.J. Mac. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Service, Washington, D.C. Willey, D.W. and R.V. Ward. In prep. Inventory for Mexican spotted owls in side canyon habitat of Grand Canyon National Park. Interim Report 2001. APPENDIX A Grand Canyon General Management Plan (1995) Excerpts Pertaining to North Rim Administration Building Management Objectives (Page 7  8) The management objectives for Grand Canyon National Park, which are based on the park visions, set the direction for future park management. The objectives describe desired conditions to be achieved. International Significance " Manage the park to preserve its integrity as a world heritage site with natural and cultural resources of national and international significance. Natural And Cultural Resources " Preserve, protect, and interpret the park's natural and scenic resources and values, and its ecological processes. " Preserve, manage, and interpret park cultural resources (archeological, ethnographic, architectural, and historic resources, trails, and cultural landscapes) for the benefit of present and future generations. " Preserve, protect, and improve air quality and related values such as visibility. " Manage visitor use, development, and support services to protect the park's resources and values. " Preserve and protect the genetic integrity and species composition within the park, consistent with natural ecosystem processes. " To the maximum extent possible, restore altered ecosystems to their natural conditions. In managing naturalized ecosystems, ensure the preservation of native components through the active management of nonnative components and processes. " Manage ecosystems to preserve critical processes and linkages that ensure the preservation of rare, endemic, and specially protected (threatened/endangered) plant and animal species. " Protect the natural quiet and solitude of the park, and mitigate or eliminate the effects of activities causing excessive or unnecessary noise in, over, or adjacent to the park. " Preserve natural spring and stream flows and water quality. Withdraw only the minimum water necessary to meet park purposes. To the maximum extent feasible, strive to meet increases in water demand by conserving and reusing water. " Provide opportunities for scientific study and research focused on the Grand Canyon, consistent with resource protection and park purposes. " Inventory, monitor, and maintain data on park natural and cultural resources and values, and utilize this information in the most effective ways possible to facilitate park management decisions to better preserve the park. " Clearly delineate and maintain the park boundary to protect park resources and values. " Identify and evaluate all cultural properties within the park for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. " Collect ethnographic data and develop ethnohistories for the Havasupai, Hopi, Hualapai, Navajo, Southern Paiute, and Zuni peoples concerning their associations with the Grand Canyon, as appropriate, in order to preserve, protect, and interpret park resources and values important to diverse American Indian cultures, including significant, sacred, and traditional use areas. Visitor Experience " Provide a diverse range of quality visitor experiences, as appropriate, based on the resources and values of the Grand Canyon, compatible with the protection of those resources and values. " Provide access that is appropriate and consistent with the character and nature of each landscape unit and the desired visitor experience. " Consistent with park purposes and the characteristics of each landscape unit, preserve and protect the maximum opportunities in every landscape unit of the park for visitors to experience the solitude, natural conditions, primitiveness, remoteness, and inspirational value of the Grand Canyon. " Provide equal access to programs, activities, experiences, and recreational opportunities for individuals with disabilities, as appropriate and consistent with the levels of development and inherent levels of access in areas within the park. " Provide a wide range of interpretive opportunities and information services to best assist, inform, educate, and challenge visitors. " Educate and influence the public through positive action to preserve and protect the world they live in, including but not limited to the park. " Provide a safe, efficient, and environmentally sensitive transportation system for visitors, employees, and residents, consistent with management zoning and resource considerations. Emphasize nonmotorized modes of transportation wherever feasible. " Develop visitor use management strategies to enhance the visitor experience while minimizing crowding, conflicts, and resource impacts. " Provide visitor and employee facilities and services, as necessary and appropriate, in or adjacent to areas dedicated to those uses or in appropriate disturbed areas. Facility Design " Consistent with its purpose, strive to make Grand Canyon National Park a model of excellence in sustainable design and management through such means as energy efficiency, conservation, compatibility with historic setting and architecture, recycling, accessibility, and the use of alternative energy sources. " Encourage appropriate use and adaptive reuse of historic structures, while preserving historic integrity. " Ensure that development and facilities within the park are necessary for park purposes. " Design high-quality facilities that exemplify visual consistency and appropriateness. " Ensure that park developments and operations do not adversely affect park resources and environments, except where absolutely necessary to provide reasonable visitor access and experiences. North Rim Management Objectives (Pages 9 - 10) The North Rim is considered to include all park lands north of the canyon rim from Walhalla Plateau west to Swamp Point. The following objectives for the North Rim are in addition to the overall park objectives. Visitor Experience " Maintain a slow pace, low-key atmosphere and historic setting on the North Rim, including the Bright Angel peninsula, allowing visitors to have an intimate involvement with the environment. Preserve the uncrowded atmosphere of limited or no development in all areas. Ensure that park roads are maintained as meandering, scenic roads that are designed for viewing the park environment at a slow speed. " Ensure that visitors, even on the Bright Angel peninsula, are within a short distance of areas where the sights and sounds of other people create little or no intrusion on their experience. " Provide a primitive winter experience consistent with historic winter recreational opportunities. Access " Emphasize the natural environment and slow pace of the visitor experience in providing all access to the North Rim, and be consistent with the characteristics of the particular destination inside the park. " Provide opportunities for day hikes on maintained trails through the forest environment away from developed areas. Development " Limit all visitor, administrative, and support facilities and services, including overnight accommodations, to maintain the integrity of the desired visitor experience and historic setting. " Maintain large undisturbed areas on the Bright Angel peninsula. APPENDIX B Compliance The following laws and associated regulations provided direction for the design of project alternatives, the analysis of impacts and the formulation of mitigation/avoidance measures: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (Title 42 U.S. Code Sections 4321 to 4370 [42 USC 4321-4370]). The purposes of NEPA include encouraging "harmony between [humans] and their environment and promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment. . .and stimulate the health and welfare of [humanity]". The purposes of NEPA are accomplished by evaluating the effects of federal actions. The results of these evaluations are presented to the public, federal agencies, and public officials in document format (e.g., environmental assessments and environmental impact statements) for consideration prior to taking official action or making official decisions. Implementing regulations for the NEPA are contained in Part 1500 to 1515 of Title 40 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1515). Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended (CWA) (33 USC 1251-1387). The purposes of the CWA are to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters". To enact this goal, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has been charged with evaluating federal actions that result in potential degradation of waters of the U.S. and issuing permits for actions consistent with the CWA. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also has responsibility for oversight and review of permits and actions, which affect waters of the U.S. Implementing regulations describing the Corps' CWA program are contained in 33 CFR 320-330. Clean Air Act (PL chapter 360, 69 Stat 322, 42 USC 7401 et seq.). The main purpose of this act is to protect and enhance the nation s air quality to promote the public health and welfare. The act establishes specific programs that provide special protection for air resources and air quality related values associated with NPS units. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been charged with implementing this Act. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) (16 USC 1531-1544). The purposes of the ESA include providing "a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved". According to the ESA, "all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species" and "[e]ach Federal agency shall. . .insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency. . .is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species". The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (non-marine species) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (marine species, including anadromous fish and marine mammals) administer the ESA. The effects of any agency action that may affect endangered, threatened, or proposed species must be evaluated in consultation with either the USFWS or NMFS, as appropriate. Implementing regulations which describe procedures for interagency cooperation to determine the effects of actions on endangered, threatened, or proposed species are contained in 50 CFR 402. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA) (16 USC 470 et sequentia). Congressional policy set forth in the NHPA includes preserving "the historical and cultural foundations of the Nation" and preserving irreplaceable examples important to our national heritage to maintain "cultural, educational, aesthetic, inspirational, economic, and energy benefits". The NHPA also established the National Register of Historic Places composed of "districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture". The NHPA requires that federal agencies take into account the effects of their actions on properties eligible for or included in the National Register of Historic Places and coordinate such actions with State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO). NHPA also requires federal agencies, in consultation with the SHPO, to locate, inventory, and nominate all properties that appear to qualify for the National Register of Historic Places, including National Historic Landmarks. Further, it requires federal agencies to document those properties in the case of an adverse effect and propose alternatives to those actions, in accordance with the NEPA. APPENDIX C1 - Alternative A - No Action - Existing Conditions (site map) APPENDIX C2 - Alternative B - Preferred Administrative - Proposed Layout for North Rim Adminstration Building and Parking (map) APPENDIX C3 - Alternative C - New Access Road - Proposed Layout for North Rim Adminstration Building and Parking (map) APPENDIX C4 - North Rim Administration Building Schematic Design APPENDIX D Wildlife Species Descriptions Mexican Spotted Owl  Threatened - The Mexican spotted owl (MSO; Strix occidentalis lucida) was listed as a threatened species in March 1993, and a recovery plan was issued in 1995. MSO typically breed and roost in deep canyon or diverse forested habitats. They are associated with late seral forests and are generally found in habitat that includes mixed conifer and pine-oak forests, riparian madrean woodland, and sandstone canyonlands (USFWS 1995). However, MSO have been found in relatively open shrub and woodland vegetation communities in arid canyonland habitat (Willey 1995). Nesting habitat is typically in areas with complex forest structure or rocky canyons containing mature or old growth stands that are uneven-aged and multi-storied with high canopy closure. MSO usually nest in abandoned stick nests or in cavities in trees or cliffs. Tree nests can be on platforms such as old raptor nests or witches brooms formed by dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium sp.) or in cavities formed by broken-off branches or tree tops. Nests in rock canyon areas are usually in cavities in the rocks or in caves (Ganey and Dick 1995). The diet of the MSO varies depending on location and habitat. Generally it consists of small and medium-sized mammals such as peromyscid mice, voles (Microtus spp.), pocket gophers (Thomomys spp.), ground squirrels (Spermophilus spp.), and woodrats (Neotoma spp.). Woodrats are the most common and important prey item range-wide, as measured in frequency in the owls diet and in biomass consumed (Ward and Block 1995). Other animals that may occasionally be consumed include small birds (usually Passeriformes), lizards (Sceloporus spp.), bats (Chiroptera), beetles (Coleoptera), and rabbits (Sylvilagus spp.). MSO use a wider variety of forest conditions when foraging than when nesting or roosting, and a diverse prey base is dependant on the availability and quality of diverse habitats. Spotted owls typically forage at night, although diurnal foraging has also been observed. Data Sources: The presence of MSO within Grand Canyon National Park was confirmed in 1992 through field surveys of approximately 2,430 ha (6,000 acres) of suitable habitat on the North and South Rims. Additional MSO surveys occurred in 1994 and 1995 along the South Rim and in 1998 and 1999 along the North Rim. These surveys did not detect any spotted owls. In 1999, additional surveys were conducted in side canyon habitat along the Colorado River corridor and responses were received at six locations. Surveys continued along the river corridor in 2001, with new owls located (Willey and Ward, in prep.). An extensive owl survey was initiated in 2001 with crews surveying the inner canyon and river corridor, owl habitat below the North and South Rims, and portions of the North and South Rim plateaus. A second year of surveys for these same areas was completed in 2002. Surveys in the project area specific to Mexican spotted owls were conducted during 1998, 1999, 2001, and 2002. Critical habitat for MSO was designated in 2001 and includes most of the Park except the South Rim. Owl habitat in Grand Canyon National Park is cool canyon habitat defined as areas with low thermal intensity, short thermal duration, and steep slopes (Spotskey and Willey 2000). Predicted habitat has been spatially defined through a geographic information system (GIS) model and may or may not include forested habitat; i.e., the coolness and short thermal duration may be a result of vertical rock faces, cliff walls, and aspect and not necessarily because an area has dense vegetative canopy cover. The size and extent of the MSO population at Grand Canyon is currently unknown. However, survey results suggest that MSO occupy the rugged canyonland terrain within the Grand Canyon. Detections of MSO indicate they are utilizing small stringers of Douglas-fir trees below the rim (D. Spotskey, NPS, pers. com., May 23, 2000). No MSO are known from the plateau areas of the Park. The Park falls within the Colorado Plateau Recovery Unit. The Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (USFWS 1995) provides for three levels of habitat management: protected areas, restricted areas, and other forest and woodland types. Approximately 40 MSO Provisional Protected Activity Centers (PACs) have been designated for known MSO locations in the Park as of 2002 (Spotskey, GRCA, pers. comm.. 9/5/02). Protected habitat in the Colorado Plateau Recovery Unit includes any PACs, designated wilderness areas, and any mixed conifer forests on slopes over 40%. Restricted habitat in the Colorado Plateau Recovery Unit includes mixed conifer forests or riparian habitats that have primary constituent elements. Primary constituent elements in these habitat types include high basal area of trees, uneven-aged structure, and high snag basal area. Primary constituent elements in canyon habitat include cooler and more humid conditions than in the surrounding area; clumps or stringers of trees; canyon walls with crevices, ledges or caves; high percent cover of ground litter or woody debris; and riparian or woody vegetation. Spotted owls have been detected below the rim in Transept Canyon, to the west of the project area. The PAC boundary is greater than 0.5 mile from the project area. The project area is vegetated by ponderosa pine forest and does not qualify as restricted or critical MSO habitat. Threats. The primary threats cited for the owl in most Recovery Units include large-scale catastrophic wildfire and timber harvest. Potential threats cited specifically for the Colorado Plateau Recovery Unit focus more on recreational impacts, road building, and overgrazing. California Condor  Threatened  California condors (Gymnogyps californianus) are large birds that reach sexual maturity by 5-6 years of age. They are strict scavengers and rely on finding their food visually, often by investigating the activity of ravens, coyotes, eagles, and other scavengers. Without the guidance of their parents, young inexperienced juveniles may also investigate human activity. As young condors learn and mature this human-directed curiosity diminishes. The California condor was listed as an endangered species in March 1967. In 1996, the USFWS established a nonessential, experimental population of California condors in northern Arizona. In December 1996 the first condors were released in the Vermillion Cliffs area of Coconino County, Arizona, approximately 48 km (30 miles) north of Grand Canyon National Park. Subsequent releases have occurred in May 1997, November 1997, November 1998, December 1999, February 2002 and December 2002 in the same vicinity and in the Hurricane Cliff area, which is about 96 km (60 miles) west of Vermillion Cliffs. By declaring the population  nonessential, experimental, the USFWS can treat this population as  threatened and develop regulations for management of the population that are less restrictive than mandatory prohibitions covering endangered species. This facilitates efforts to return the condor to the wild by providing increased opportunities to minimize conflict between the management of the condors and other activities. Within Grand Canyon National Park, the condor has the full protection of a threatened species (NPS 1991). Nesting habitat for California condors includes various types of rock formations such as crevices, overhung ledges, and potholes. Most California condor foraging occurs in open meadows and throughout the forested areas of the rims. Typical foraging behavior includes long-distance reconnaissance flights, lengthy circling flights over a carcass, and hours of waiting at a roost or on the ground near a carcass. Roost sites include cliffs and tall trees, including snags (61 FR 54043-54060). Data Sources. As of December 2002, the population of free-flying condors in Arizona totaled 33. All of the California condors in northern Arizona are fitted with radio transmitters that allow field biologists to monitor the condors movements. Condors have been observed as far west as the Virgin Mountains near Mesquite, Nevada; south to the San Francisco Peaks outside of Flagstaff, Arizona; north to Zion and Bryce Canyon National Parks and beyond to Minersville, Utah; and east to Mesa Verde, Colorado and the Four Corners region (Peregrine Fund 2000). Monitoring data indicate condors are using habitat throughout Grand Canyon National Park, with concentration areas in Marble Canyon, Desert View to the Village on the South Rim, and the Village to Hermits Rest. During the summer/fall of 2002, the North Kaibab National Forest was used frequently for perching, roosting and foraging. Potential nesting habitat exists throughout the Park. One nesting attempt was documented in the Marble Canyon area in 2001. Two nest sites on the South Rim, one on The Battleship and one on Dana Butte, were initiated in 2002. Both nest sites failed. It is unclear whether condors would select nesting areas in close proximity to developed portions of the Park. Threats. The main reason for the decline of condors was an unsustainable mortality rate of free-flying birds combined with a naturally low reproductive rate. Most deaths in recent years have been related to human activity. Shootings, poisonings, lead poisoning, and powerline collisions are considered the condor s major threats. Peregrine Falcon.  Delisted - The American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) was listed as endangered in 1970. On 25 August 1999, the USFWS removed the peregrine falcon from the federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife due to its recovery. Peregrine falcons generally nest on cliffs near water. However, river cutbanks, trees, and manmade structures have been used as nesting habitat (USFWS 2000). Peregrine falcons feed primarily on other birds such as songbirds, shorebirds, and waterfowl. The usual method of obtaining prey is by attacking flying birds from above or chasing them from behind. Peregrines may travel up to 17 miles from nesting cliffs to hunting areas. Preferred foraging habitats include cropland, meadows, river bottoms, marshes, and lakes. Prey species may include, but are not limited to, blackbirds, jays, doves, shorebirds, and smaller songbirds. Data Sources. The population of peregrine falcons in Arizona is steadily increasing. In 1991, the peregrine falcon population in the Rocky Mountain/Southwest region was 367 known pairs; in 1998, the number of pairs had increased to 535. In Arizona, the known number of peregrine falcon pairs was 159 in 1999 (64 FR 46542-46558). Extensive surveys have been conducted over the years in Grand Canyon National Park by park biologists and U.S. Geological Survey/BRD personnel. The Grand Canyon provides excellent cliff nesting habitat for peregrines and numerous eyries have been documented within the park. In a Draft Addendum to the Recovery Plan, the Fish and Wildlife Service recommended delisting of the southwestern regional population because the recovery goals outlined in the 1984 Plan have been met. As part of the delisting criteria, a five year monitoring plan would be established. FWS is currently in the process of establishing the monitoring areas for this plan and the eyries within the park are likely for inclusion. No peregrine eyries are known from the Bright Angel peninsula. The nearest known eyrie is within Grand Canyon more than 0.8 km (0.5 mile) from the peninsula. Threats. The principal cause of the peregrine s decline was chlorinated pesticides, especially DDT and its metabolite DDE, which accumulated in peregrines as a result of feeding on contaminated prey. This interfered with calcium metabolism and caused a decline in reproductive success as the result of thin eggshells. Other limiting factors included availability of cliffs and prey that can limit distribution or numbers of breeding falcons, competition for nesting cliffs with other raptors, and possible predation to eggs and young. Northern Goshawk  Species of Concern - The northern goshawk is holarctic in distribution, occupying boreal and temperate forests of North America, Europe, and Asia (63 FR 35183-35184). It is the largest of the three Accipiter species present in North America. There is considerable debate regarding North American subspecies of the northern goshawk. A. g. atricapillus is recognized worldwide as occurring over much of Alaska, Canada, and forested regions of the western and eastern United States. Two other subspecies are variously recognized: A. g. laingi, which occurs on islands off the Canadian Pacific Coast; and A. g. apache, which occurs in mountains of the southwestern United States. The USFWS does not currently recognize the apache subspecies (63 FR 35183-35184). Northern goshawks generally nest in stands of mature trees with a dense canopy. In the Southwest, goshawks most frequently occupy three forest types: ponderosa pine; mixed species (primarily Douglas fir and white fir); and Englemann spruce subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa). Nest sites are typically located on northerly slopes (Reynolds et al. 1992). Although goshawks typically nest in stands of mature trees, they are forest generalists and use a variety of forest ages and types to meet their life history requirements (Reynolds et al. 1992, 63 FR 35183-35184). Various studies have shown that the mean size of a goshawk home range is around 5,000 acres (Reynolds et al. 1992), and these home ranges generally contain a mosaic of forest conditions. Goshawks prey opportunistically on a variety of small to mid-sized mammalian and avian species such as squirrels (Sciuridae), blue grouse (Dendragapus obscurus), rabbits, woodrats, doves (Zenaida spp.), jays (Cyanocitta spp.), and woodpeckers (Picoides spp.). Foraging habitat is probably as closely related to prey availability as to habitat structure or composition. Many prey species use snags, downed logs, woody debris, large trees, openings, and herbaceous and woody understories. Because goshawks are visually limited in habitats with dense understories, an open understory enhances detection and capture of prey (Reynolds et al. 1992). Data Sources. Goshawk surveys have been conducted in Grand Canyon National Park. South Rim surveys were conducted regularly in 1991, 1992, and 1994-1996. Sporadic surveys also occurred in 1999 and 2000, and several nests were found. Surveys have also occurred on the North Rim, most recently in 2002 in areas affected by the Outlet Fire. The primary habitat for goshawks within the Park is in the mixed conifer and ponderosa pine habitat on the North Rim. There are approximately 10 known goshawks territories in the vicinity of the North Rim developed area, two of which are within the Bright Angel peninsula watershed. This is a small proportion of the over 100 terrritories on the North Kaibab plateau. The nearest known goshawk territory is approximately 1 mile from the project area. Threats. There is a concern that populations and reproduction of the goshawk are declining in the western United States. These declines may be associated with forest changes caused by timber harvesting, but fire suppression, livestock grazing, drought and toxic chemicals may also be involved (Reynolds et al. 1992). Kaibab squirrel  National Natural Landmark  Tassle-eared (Abert) squirrels (Sciurus aberti) are found in ponderosa pine communities in parts of Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah in the United States and in the Sierra Madre Occidental from Sonora and Chihuahua south to Durango in Mexico (Nash and Seaman 1977). Three subspecies are recognized in Arizona: S. a. kaibabensis (Kaibab squirrel) on the Kaibab Plateau, S. a. chuscensis in northeastern Arizona, and S. a. aberti south of the Colorado and Little Colorado Rivers. All subspecies in Arizona are restricted to ponderosa pine forests. Nests are typically built of small pine branches in a large pine tree. Nest trees are usually in closed stands and have a crown interlocked with those of several neighboring trees (Halloran and Bekoff 1994). Selected nest trees are usually one of a group of trees with interlocking crowns, are often greater than 100 years old, and between 15-20 inches in diameter. The best habitat for Abert squirrels may be intermediate-aged forest interspersed with groups of large trees with interlocking crowns. Abert squirrels consume the seeds, inner bark, terminal buds, and staminate flowers of ponderosa pines (Nash and Seaman 1977). They also feed on fungi, mistletoe, antlers, acorns, and insects (Hoffmeister 1986). Abert squirrels are opportunistic feeders, consuming foods that are readily accessible. During the winter, the inner bark and terminal buds of ponderosa pines are the primary food source. Populations of Abert squirrels may fluctuate widely over space and time, possibly in response to variations in the seed production of pine trees (Mejia 1997). Tassel-eared squirrels are generally solitary or at least nongregarious except during the breeding season and when young are dependent on their mothers. They are diurnal and spend much of the day searching for food. Data Sources. The Kaibab squirrel was historically found only on the North Rim of the Grand Canyon. In the 1940s, transplants of Abert squirrels occurred in mountain ranges throughout south and central Arizona. Between 1972 and 1977, Kaibab squirrels were transplanted from the Kaibab Plateau to Mt. Logan on the Arizona Strip. Kaibab squirrels now occur in the Sawmill Mountains, on Mt. Emma, and on Mt. Trumbull, in addition to the Kaibab Plateau. Kaibab squirrels on the Kaibab Plateau have been designated a National Natural Landmark. This designation comes with direction to federal agencies to consider the unique properties of Natural Landmarks when assessing effects of actions on the environment. The Bright Angel peninsula is within the National Natural Landmark boundary for the Kaibab squirrel. Appendix E North Rim Exotic Plants Common Name Scientific Name Family Name Priority Level Urgency Ranking Red top Grass Agrostis stolonifera Poaceae 2 High Smooth brome Bromus inermis Poaceae 2 High Oxeye daisy Chrysanthemum leucanthrum Asteraceae 2 High Houndstongue Cynoglossum officinale Boraginaceae 1 High Orchard grass Dactylis glomerata Poaceae 2 High Dalmatian toadflax Linaria dalmatica Scrophulariaceae 2 High Horehound Marrubuim vulgare Laminaceae 2 High Johnson grass Sorghum halepense Poaceae 2 High Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum Poaceae 2 Medium Quackgrass Elymus repens Poaceae 2 Medium Bedstraw Galium aparine Rubiaceae 2 Medium Perennial ryegrass Lolium perenne Poaceae 2 Medium Annual sweet clover Melilotus officinalis Fabadeae 2 Medium Common timothy Phleum pratense Poaceae 2 Medium Buckhorn plaintain Plantago lanceolata Plataginaceae 2 Medium Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis Poaceae 2 Medium Rabbitfoot grass Polypogon monspeliensis Poaceae 2 Medium Sheep sorrel Rumex acetosella Polypogonaceae 2 Medium Common dandelion Taraxacum officinale Asteraceae 2 Medium APPENDIX F Cultural Resources Documentation Summary1 of North Rim Headquarters District Nomination (1982) Name: North Rim Headquarters Location: North Rim, Grand Canyon National Park, Coconino Country, Arizona Significance:  The North Rim Headquarters District& is of local historical significance reflecting, and as a product of, the efforts of the National Park Service to open up the North Rim& to tourists. The buildings are primarily utilitarian in style, although several of them, and some particular features of others, represent rustic architecture or decoration, and significance applies locally to them. Significance is limited to, or embodied in, the exterior architecture, and the interior fireplace of Building 102& . Description: Fair condition  The North Rim Headquarters District of Grand Canyon National Park consists of a number of utilitarian but harmonious buildings, and a few with features of rustic architectural design, emplaced in some intermittent clearings or meadows in a forest of mixed conifer (Ponderosa Pine) and quaking aspen trees on the relatively flat plateau near the head of Transept Canyon, a side canyon off the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River. The Headquarters area consists basically of two groupings of buildings, the easternmost consisting of several residences, a garage, and a ranger station, the western group, which is adjacent to the residences, consisting of maintenance buildings, a resources management office, a barn, and more residences. A number of the smaller residences in the district boundaries, and one other building, are lacking in integrity and therefore in significance, but they are harmonious and not intrusive. They have been listed in the description below with that stipulation. Table 1. North Rim Headquarters District Building List Building Number Description Construction Date/ Comments 101 Residence 1926 101-A Fuel Shed 1926; converted to residence; no longer has integrity 102 Residence 1931; housed district ranger 102-A Garage 1931 111 Dormitory 1931 118 Warehouse 1925; moved to present location by CCC 119 Administrative Offices 1934; converted to offices in 1976; no longer has integrity 120 Ranger Station 1931; moved to district by CCC; destroyed by fire on March 5, 1982 123 Equipment Shed 1929; converted to plumbing/electrical shop 124 Machine and Blacksmith Shop 1932; converted to carpenter shop 125 Gas and Oil Station 1933; has been altered significantly 126 Fire Equipment Shed 1934 127 quipment Shed 1930 s; moved to present location by CCC; no longer has integrity 129 Horse Barn 1926 171 Equipment Shed 1936 151,152,155 Residences Date unknown; no longer have integrity 175,177,150 Residences Between 1933-1936; moved to present location by CCC; no longer have integrity 176,178 Residences Between 1933-1936; moved to present location by CCC; no longer have integrity 1 = A complete copy of the National Register Nomination Form is available upon request. APPENDIX G Foreseeable Future Actions on the North Rim 1. North Rim Administrative Building  This project would remove the existing administration building (a trailer) and construct a larger building at essentially the same site, would renovate the existing parking area and continue to use the existing roads for access to the new building. The new building would be approximately 2,467 square feet and would support the backcountry permit system, visitor contact services, public restroom, and administrative offices. No tree removal would be required for this project, due to its location on the existing footprint of the current building and its associated parking area. The project area is relatively small, is between two residential areas and within the headquarters area where development has occurred and continues to occur. The site is in a small opening in a forest consisting mainly of ponderosa pine and some scattered aspen. Disturbance for this project is estimated at 1 acre. No trees greater than 12 inches DBH would be removed for this project. 2. North Rim Emergency Services/Wildland Fire Facility. A new emergency services/wildland fire facility would be built in the vicinity of the water tanks. The facility would occupy approximately 10,590 square feet and would have EMS facilities grouped at one end of the building, wildland fire facilities at the other, and shared spaces between. EMS facilities would include storage areas for emergency services vehicles (fire engine, ambulance, patrol cars, suburban), caches for EMS and search and rescue equipment, men s and women s locker rooms, holding cells, and office space. The wildland fire facilities would include storage areas for vehicles, a fire equipment cache, and office, laboratory, and work spaces. Shared facilities would include offices, a conference room, and maintenance facilities. Paved area for parking and roads would occupy approximately 0.9 acres. All utilities would be connected to the facility underground. Trenching for utilities would result in disturbance to approximately 0.14 acres. The total area of ground disturbed at the site would be approximately 2 acres and approximately 0.6 acres would be revegetated following construction. Approximately 74 trees (both ponderosa pine and aspen) greater than 12 inches DBH would be removed for this project. 3. Exposed Frame Cabin Rehabilitation  Twenty-six one-room cabins, a shower facility, and a laundry facility in the North Rim Inn and Campground Historic District would be restored, rehabilitated, or reconstructed and would be used to house the wildland fire crew. Project actions will be limited to the buildings themselves and the immediate surroundings and would not require ground disturbance or vegetation removal. No trees greater than 12 inches DBH would be removed for this project. 4. North Rim Campground Rehabilitation  The preferred alternative for this project includes removal of the existing entrance kiosk and constructing a new campground registration building essentially within the existing parking area, resurfacing the roads within the campground, restroom rehabilitation, installation of a 6-stall restroom and installation of one prefabricated vault toilet at the group site to replace the existing outhouse. Disturbance for this project is estimated at 0.75 acres. Approximately 4 trees greater than 12 inches DBH would be removed for this project. 5. North Rim Lodge Road Reconfiguration  This project would change public access routes to the Lodge. The terminus of the main road would be reconfigured to allow tour busses to turn around and discharge and pick up guests at this terminus, and to restrict passenger vehicle access to the Lodge. The existing road segment between the parking area and the Lodge would be converted primarily to pedestrian use. Very little new ground disturbance would result from this project, as most work is confined to existing roadways and parking areas. Disturbance for this project is estimated at 0.5 acres. No trees greater than 12 inches DBH would be removed for this project. 6. Lodge Road Parking. The main parking area would be reconfigured to allow for additional bus/RV parking. Disturbance for this project is estimated at 0.5 acres. Approximately 13 trees greater than 12 inches DBH would be removed for this project. 7. Visitor Center Upgrades and Orientation Center Exhibits  Improper drainage beneath the visitor center would be repaired, the building exterior would be refinished, solar panels would be added to the roof, native vegetation landscaping would be added to the site, and repair and rehabilitation of the existing walkways around the building would be done. A wayside exhibit plan has been created by the park for the plaza area adjacent to the visitor center. Two orientation panels and three to four interpretive panels would be installed as well as a flagpole. Low-level outdoor lighting may be installed as well, but the park is still evaluating the necessity and feasibility of this component. All work would occur in areas already developed and that receive high visitor use in the summer season. No trees greater than 12 inches DBH would be removed for this project. 8. North Rim Water Distribution System Rehabilitation  This project involves the upgrading of the existing water distribution system, including the addition of fire hydrants and hose houses where necessary. The majority of the existing potable water lines would be dug up and replaced. A pumping station would be upgraded to boost pressure to the administrative area and the campground area. Work would be conducted in previously disturbed areas, along existing utility corridors, many of which are along roads. Tree removal would be minimal, consisting primarily of small seedlings and saplings that have grown up along the utility corridor. Approximately 2.3 miles of water line would be replaced during the course of this project. Disturbance for this project is estimated at 2.5 acres. Approximately 10 trees greater than 12 inches DBH would be removed for this project. 9. 44-Room Dorm  A 44-unit, two-story dormitory would be constructed adjacent to the existing RV Trailer park and mill shed within the developed area of the North Rim on Bright Angel peninsula. This dorm would provide critically needed housing for concessioner employees on the North Rim. The dorm would be constructed adjacent to the RV park and in the vicinity of the concessioner dining facility and housing area. These areas are currently disturbed sites that are frequently used by concessions and park employees, and are not in areas accessed by the public. The habitat type in the project area is ponderosa pine, with some occasional aspen represented. Disturbance for this project is estimated at 2 acres. Up to Approximately 20 ponderosa pine trees greater than 12 inches DBH would be removed for this project. 10. Mill Shed Replacement   This is a small building that is in need of replacement. The project would take down the existing building. The current proposal would entail construction of a replacement building on the same site, pending cultural resource evaluation and consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer. This project is located within the concessioner/maintenance and housing area, and adjacent to the site of the proposed concessioner dorm. This area is a disturbed site that is frequently used by concessions and park employees, and is not in an area accessed by the public. The habitat type in the project area is ponderosa pine, with some occasional aspen represented. Disturbance for this project is estimated at 0.25 acres. No trees greater than 12 inches DBH would be removed for this project. 11. RV Trailer Park Upgrades  This project would add twelve additional RV sites to the North Rim employee trailer court and upgrade the existing infrastructure. Sites would be added within the boundaries of the existing trailer park, which is located within the concessioner/maintenance and housing area, and adjacent to the site of the proposed concessioner dorm. Vegetation disturbance would be minimal and tree removal is unlikely. This area is a disturbed site that is frequently used by concessions and park employees, and is not in an area accessed by the public. The habitat type in the project area is ponderosa pine, with some occasional aspen represented. Disturbance for this project is estimated at 2 acres. 12. North Kaibab Trailhead Restroom  The existing portable toilet in the upper parking area island would be replaced with a pair of prefabricated vault toilets at the same location. It is likely some rock excavation may be necessary for vault installation. Site work would include removal and replacement of curbing, accessible walkway placement and installation of accessible ramps to the toilets. No trees would need to be removed for this project. The project area is a disturbed site at the existing parking area. Disturbance for this proj