######### ![](media/image1.png){width="0.7166666666666667in" height="0.9340277777777778in"}**National Park Service**

**U.S. Department of the Interior**

**ZION NATIONAL PARK**

**UTAH**

######### **Backcountry Management Plan** 

######### **Environmental Assessment**

######### **May 2007**

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="6.141666666666667in"
height="4.613194444444445in"}

This page intentionally left blank.

Zion National Park

Backcountry Management Plan & Environmental Assessment

Summary

The Backcountry Management Plan and Environmental Assessment (EA)
identifies opportunities for a variety of backcountry recreational
activities and experiences while recognizing and protecting the
wilderness resource values of Zion National Park (ZION).

This plan/EA provides guidance for the management of 145,060 acres
within ZION which include: recommended and potential wilderness; General
Management Plan (GMP) Pristine, Primitive, Research Natural Area Zones
and portions of the Transition Zone that overlay recommended wilderness;
and any technical rock climbing areas regardless of where they occur in
the park.

This plan/EA also provides direction for management of natural and
cultural resources within the context of wilderness and backcountry
management policies, with primary focus on visitor use and impacts to
wilderness values and resources and actions to mitigate associated
impacts. This plan/EA must treat any proposed or recommended wilderness
the same as officially designated wilderness, based on National Park
Service (NPS) *Management Policies 2006* (6.3.1).

This EA analyzes two alternatives:

> **Alternative A --** The No Action Alternative describes
> backcountry/recommended wilderness management as it exists today. Many
> of the management actions identified in this alternative were made
> through the 2001 GMP and were considered interim until this
> backcountry plan/EA was completed.
>
> **Alternative B --** The Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative
> proposes to formalize carrying capacities based on visitor experience
> and resource protection (VERP) studies; identifies strategies to
> monitor the effects of visitor use on park resources and visitor
> experience; identifies indicators, standards, and management options
> as part of the monitoring strategy; and addresses commercial use in
> the backcountry.

**NOTE TO REVIEWERS AND RESPONDENTS**

If you wish to comment on the EA, you may enter them online at the NPS
website Planning, Environment, and Public Comment
(**http://parkplanning.nps.gov/**) or you may mail comments to the
address below. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail
address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you
should be aware that your entire comment -- including your personal
identifying information -- may be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal
identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we
will be able to do so.

**Please send comments by June 29, 2007 to:**

> **Zion National Park**
>
> **Attn: Backcountry Management Plan/EA**
>
> **Springdale, UT 84767**
>
> **This page left intentionally blank.**
>
> **Table of Contents**

[**PURPOSE AND NEED** 1](#__RefHeading___Toc166488616)

[Introduction 1](#__RefHeading___Toc166488617)

[Purpose and Need for the Plan 1](#__RefHeading___Toc166488618)

[Goals and Objectives 2](#__RefHeading___Toc166488619)

[Planning Direction, Regulation, and Policy
7](#__RefHeading___Toc166488620)

[Coordination with Other Plans and Programs
10](#__RefHeading___Toc166488621)

[Scoping 13](#__RefHeading___Toc166488622)

[Issues and Impact Topics Analyzed in Detail
14](#__RefHeading___Toc166488623)

[Issues and Impact Topics Considered and Dismissed from Further
Consideration 15](#__RefHeading___Toc166488624)

[**ALTERNATIVES** 18](#__RefHeading___Toc166488625)

[Introduction 18](#__RefHeading___Toc166488626)

[Alternative A -- No Action/Current Management
19](#__RefHeading___Toc166488627)

[Alternative B -- Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative
29](#__RefHeading___Toc166488628)

[Mitigation Measures for Alternative B 59](#__RefHeading___Toc166488629)

[Alternatives Considered But Dismissed From Further Analysis
60](#__RefHeading___Toc166488630)

[Summary and Comparison of Alternatives and Impacts
61](#__RefHeading___Toc166488631)

[Environmentally Preferred Alternative 66](#__RefHeading___Toc166488632)

[**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT and ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES**
67](#__RefHeading___Toc166488633)

[Introduction 67](#__RefHeading___Toc166488634)

[Methodology for Assessing Impacts 67](#__RefHeading___Toc166488635)

[Wilderness 70](#__RefHeading___Toc166488636)

[Affected Environment 70](#__RefHeading___Toc166488637)

[Effects of Alternative A -- No Action 71](#__RefHeading___Toc166488638)

[Effects of Alternative B -- Proposed Action
73](#__RefHeading___Toc166488639)

[Visitor Use and Experience 76](#__RefHeading___Toc166488640)

[Affected Environment 76](#__RefHeading___Toc166488641)

[Effects of Alternative A -- No Action 77](#__RefHeading___Toc166488642)

[Effects of Alternative B -- Proposed Action
79](#__RefHeading___Toc166488643)

[Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Animal Species
81](#__RefHeading___Toc166488644)

[Affected Environment 81](#__RefHeading___Toc166488645)

[Effects of Alternative A -- No Action 83](#__RefHeading___Toc166488646)

[Effects of Alternative B -- Proposed Action
86](#__RefHeading___Toc166488647)

[Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species
89](#__RefHeading___Toc166488648)

[Affected Environment 89](#__RefHeading___Toc166488649)

[Effects of Alternative A -- No Action 91](#__RefHeading___Toc166488650)

[Effects of Alternative B -- Proposed Action
93](#__RefHeading___Toc166488651)

[Vegetation 95](#__RefHeading___Toc166488652)

[Affected Environment 95](#__RefHeading___Toc166488653)

[Effects of Alternative A -- No Action
101](#__RefHeading___Toc166488654)

[Effects of Alternative B -- Proposed Action
102](#__RefHeading___Toc166488655)

[Soils 103](#__RefHeading___Toc166488656)

[Affected Environment 103](#__RefHeading___Toc166488657)

[Effects of Alternative A -- No Action
105](#__RefHeading___Toc166488658)

[Effects of Alternative B -- Proposed Action
105](#__RefHeading___Toc166488659)

[Floodplains 106](#__RefHeading___Toc166488660)

[Affected Environment 106](#__RefHeading___Toc166488661)

[Effects of Both Alternative A and Alternative B
107](#__RefHeading___Toc166488662)

[**CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION** 108](#__RefHeading___Toc166488663)

[Public Involvement Summary 108](#__RefHeading___Toc166488664)

[List of Preparers 110](#__RefHeading___Toc166488665)

[List of Environmental Assessment Recipients
110](#__RefHeading___Toc166488666)

[**REFERENCES** 111](#__RefHeading___Toc166488667)

[GLOSSARY 114](#__RefHeading___Toc166488668)

**Maps**

Map A: General Location and Adjacent Land Ownership 3

Map B: Area Addressed in Backcountry Plan/EA 5

Map C: Recommended Wilderness 11

Map D: General Management Plan Zones 21

Map E: Trails and Popular Routes 23

Map F: Backcountry Campsites (existing and proposed) 27

Map G: Major Vegetation Complexes (North) 97

Map G: Major Vegetation Complexes (South) 99

**Tables**

Table 1: VERP Survey Data 2002 36

Table 2: VERP Survey Data 2003 36

Table 3: Visitor Acceptance of Management Options for Slot Canyons 36

Table 4: Visitor Acceptance of Management Options for the Narrows 37

Table 5: Day Use with Permit in Canyons 38

Table 6: Day Use with Permit in Canyons -- Summary 38

Table 7: Day Use with Permit in Narrows 38

Table 8: Day Use with Permit in Narrows -- Summary 38

Table 9: Overnight Backpacker Use 39

Table 10: Overnight Backpacker Use -- Summary 39

Table 11: Canyoneering Day Use -- Group Size Preference 40

Table 12: Overnight Backpacker Use -- Group Size Preference 40

Table 13: Proposed Use Limits 40

Table 14: Resource Protection Indicators and Standards 53

Table 15: Visitor Experience Indicators and Standards 58

Table 16: Comparison of the Achievement of Goals by Alternative 61

Table 17: Alternative Comparison 62

Table 18: Comparative Summary of Impacts by Alternative 65

Table 19: Visitor Use 76

Table 20: Threatened and Endangered Animal Species 81

Table 21: Threatened and Endangered Plant Species 89

Table 22: Sensitive Plant Species by Habitat 90

Table 23: Major Vegetation Complexes within Study Area 96

**Appendices**

Appendix A: Leave No Trace Principles

Appendix B: Minimum Requirement Analysis Worksheet and Instructions

Appendix C: Zion National Park Legislation

Appendix D: Notice of Scoping Backcountry Management Plan & EA

Appendix E: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Consultation

Appendix F: Floodplain Statement of Finding

Appendix G: Commercial Use Analysis

**ACRONYMS**

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CCC Civilian Conservation Corps

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EO Executive Order

FMP Fire Management Plan

FMU Fire Management Unit

GIS Geographic Information System

GMP General Management Plan

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NPS National Park Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

RNA Research Natural Area

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

USC United State Code

USDI United States Department of the Interior

USFWS United States Fish & Wildlife Service

VERP Visitor Experience & Resource Protection

ZION Zion National Park

This page left intentionally blank.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488616 .anchor}**PURPOSE AND NEED**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488617 .anchor}**Introduction**

Zion National Park (ZION) is located on the southwestern edge of the
Colorado Plateau (Map A). The 148,024 acre park lies in portions of
three counties in Utah; Washington, Iron, and Kane. The park is
approximately 300 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, Utah; 105 miles
northeast of Las Vegas, Nevada; and 380 miles northeast of Los Angeles,
California. Interstate 15, a major north-south thoroughfare, is located
west of the park.

The park is characterized by high plateaus, a maze of narrow, deep
sandstone canyons, and striking rock towers and mesas. The lowest
elevation in the park, 3,666 feet, is found at Coalpits Wash in the
southwest corner. The highest elevation, 8,726 feet, is Horse Ranch
Mountain in the Kolob Canyons section.

The majority of the park is considered backcountry -- almost 98 percent.
And almost 90 percent of the park has been recommended as wilderness.
Visitor experience the backcountry by day hiking on designated trails
and cross-country routes; backpacking and camping; canyoneering; and
climbing. In general, visitor use in the backcountry has increased over
time. With increasing visitation it becomes more of a challenge for the
National Park Service (NPS) to manage visitor use, provide a quality
visitor experience, and protect park resources. []{.mark}

This Backcountry Management Plan and Environmental Assessment (EA)
provides the direction for the NPS to manage the 145,060 acres of
backcountry within ZION. Backcountry within the park includes:
recommended and potential wilderness; General Management Plan (GMP)
Pristine, Primitive, Research Natural Area Zones and portions of the
Transition Zone that overlay recommended wilderness; and any technical
rock climbing areas regardless of where they occur in the park. For this
document, these areas will be collectively referred to as the
"backcountry" or the "study area" (Map B).

This plan/EA also provides direction for management of natural and
cultural resources within the context of wilderness and backcountry
management policies, with primary focus on visitor use and impacts to
wilderness values and resources and administrative actions to mitigate
associated impacts. This plan/EA must treat any proposed or recommended
wilderness the same as officially designated wilderness, based on NPS
*Management Policies 2006* (6.3.1).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488618 .anchor}**Purpose and Need for the
Plan**

The purpose of this plan/EA is to describe how the NPS manages for
future generations a variety of opportunities to experience the
backcountry in ZION while protecting park natural and cultural
resources, and wilderness values. The plan/EA further refines decisions
outlined in the 2001 GMP.

The need for the backcountry plan comes from the following:

-   **The need was identified in the GMP completed in 2001.**

> The GMP identifies the following topics to be considered as part of
> the backcountry planning process; appropriate uses and use levels by
> hikers and saddle stock, minimum requirement documentation guidelines
> that apply to all administrative decisions within the recommended
> wilderness, resource issues (including visitor and resource impacts,
> reservation systems, human waste, signs, resource monitoring, and fire
> management), use levels, locations, and resource issues associated
> with canyoneering and climbing, and whether or not commercial guiding
> should be allowed in the recommended wilderness.

-   **Visitor use in ZION's backcountry has steadily increased since the
    mid 1980\'s.**

> It is important to review and revise, if necessary, the park's
> management policies and guidelines with respect to overnight and day
> use and the permitting process.

-   **The population in Southern Utah continues to grow and visitation
    to ZION in general continues to increase.**

> As a result, day use and its associated impacts have increased.
> Appropriate management actions are needed to protect the backcountry
> resources for present and future generations.

-   **New technology continues to play a role in how backcountry areas
    are managed and requires consideration to protect natural resources
    and visitor experience.**

Appropriate uses need to be discussed and guidance provided.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488619 .anchor}**Goals and Objectives**

Visitors traveling through the backcountry of ZION should have the
opportunity for a variety of personal outdoor experiences, ranging from
solitary to social. Visitors should be able to continue to experience
the backcountry with as little influence from the modern world as
possible. The visitor experience should relate intimately to the
splendor of the wilderness resource of ZION. The goals and objectives
for the management of backcountry and wilderness resources and values in
ZION are as follows.

**Goals for Backcountry/Wilderness Management**

-   Protect and preserve the park's natural and cultural resources and
    values, and the integrity of the wilderness character for present
    and future generations.

-   Provide for freedom of public use and enjoyment of the park's
    backcountry in a manner that is consistent with park purposes and
    the protection of park resources and values.

-   Provide for public understanding and support of wilderness values.

**Objectives for this Plan**

-   Serve as guidance for field and management staff in application of
    backcountry management techniques and integration of wilderness
    management objectives into other aspects of park management.

-   Provide a broad range of opportunities to facilitate backcountry use
    while protecting the wilderness resource.

-   Apply policies consistently, thereby enhancing backcountry user's
    experiences and ensuring compliance with regulations.

-   Provide public information to promote Leave No Trace skills and
    wilderness ethics in order to reduce behaviors that are harmful to
    natural and cultural resources and backcountry experiences (Appendix
    A).

-   Instill and apply the Minimum Requirement Concept (Appendix B) into
    management actions and practices.

-   Base management decisions on sound scientific research and
    knowledgeable observation. Incorporate new data and information, as
    necessary, into a dynamic backcountry management program.

Front of map a

Back of map a

Front of map b

Back of map b

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488620 .anchor}**Planning Direction,
Regulation, and Policy**

**Enabling Legislation Summary**

Mukuntuweap National Monument was designated by Presidential
Proclamation 877 in 1909 under the authority of the 1906 Antiquities
Act. In 1918, Presidential Proclamation 1435 changed the name to Zion
National Monument and added additional acres to the monument. On
November 19, 1919 Congress established Zion National Park (41 Stat.
356). The proclamations recognized ZION as "an extraordinary example of
canyon erosion" and stated that ZION "is of the greatest scientific
interest and contains many natural features of unusual archaeologic,
geologic, and geographic interest." Appendix C contains the complete
legislative history of the park.

**Park Purpose and Significance**

Park purposes tell why the park was set aside as a unit in the national
park system. The significance of the park addresses what makes the area
unique -- why it is important enough to our natural and cultural
heritage to warrant national park designation and how this area differs
from other parts of the country. All of the management prescriptions in
this plan/EA are consistent with and support the park's purposes and
significance.

Based on ZION's enabling legislation, legislative history, agency
management policies, and the knowledge and insights of park staff, the
following are the purposes and significance statements for the park.

**The purposes of ZION are to:**

-   Preserve the dynamic natural process of canyon formation as an
    extraordinary example of canyon erosion.

-   Preserve and protect the scenic beauty and unique geologic features:
    the labyrinth of remarkable canyons, volcanic phenomena,
    fossiliferous deposits, brilliantly colored strata, and rare
    sedimentation.

-   Preserve the archeological features that pertain to the prehistoric
    races of America and the ancestral Indian tribes.

-   Preserve the entire area intact for the purpose of scientific
    research and the enjoyment and enlightenment of the public.

-   Provide a variety of opportunities and a range of experiences, from
    solitude to high use, to assist visitors in learning about and
    enjoying park resources without degrading those resources.

**ZION is significant for the following reasons:**

-   ZION's stunning scenery features towering brilliantly colored cliffs
    and associated vegetation highlighted by a backdrop of contrasting
    bright, southwestern skies.

-   ZION is a geological showcase with sheer sandstone cliffs among the
    highest in the world.

-   The Virgin River -- one of the last mostly free-flowing river
    systems on the Colorado Plateau -- is responsible for the ongoing
    carving of this deeply incised landscape.

-   Because of its unique geographic location and variety of life zones,
    ZION is home to a large assemblage of plant and animal communities.

-   ZION preserves evidence of human occupation from prehistoric to
    modern times, including American Indian sites, remnants of Mormon
    homesteading, and engineering and architecture related to park
    establishment and early tourism.

**Statutes Affecting Backcountry Management and Planning**

The basis for this management plan/EA can be found in congressional
legislation and NPS policies that provide guidelines for administering
each National Park. The following is a summary of federal and NPS
regulations, policies, and guidelines that provide the authority and
basis for this plan/EA:

**The Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 USC §1131 et seq.)** secures *for the
American people of present and future generations the benefits of an
enduring resource of wilderness.* By definition, wilderness is: *...a
tract of undeveloped federal land of primeval character without
permanent improvements or human habitation; an area where the earth and
its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a
visitor who does not remain; where the forces of nature predominate and
the imprint of human activities is substantially unnoticeable; which
provides outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and
unconfined type of recreation*. This act allows for the designation of
wilderness areas and establishes management directives that specify the
preservation of wilderness character.

**The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (P.L. 91-190, 42
USC §4321 et seq.)** directs agencies to develop procedures to ensure
that the natural, physical, and cultural aspects of the environment are
given due consideration in federal actions that may affect these
resources. Documentation of existing resources, potential effects to
these resources as a result of the proposed project, and public
involvement are key elements of the NEPA process. NPS compliance
procedures are described in DO-12 and Handbook -- *Conservation
Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision Making*.

**The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531-1543)** requires
federal agencies to ensure that management activities authorized,
funded, or carried out by the agency do not jeopardize the continued
existence of listed endangered or threatened species, or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of habitat that is critical to the
conservation of the species.

**The National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 USC 1a-1)** creates
the NPS, and establishes its purpose being, *to conserve the scenery and
the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to
provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means
as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.*
It directs the NPS to promote and regulate the use of the parks by such
means and measures as conform to their fundamental purposes.

**Redwood Act of 1978 (16 USC 1a-1)** amends the Organic Act to
reemphasize Congressional direction for all NPS lands and states, *the
protection, management, and administration of these areas shall be
conducted in light of the high public value and integrity of the
National Park System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the
values and purposes for which these areas have been established.*

**National Park Service Management Policies, 2006** establishes
Servicewide policies for preservation, management, and use of park
resources and facilities, and guidelines and direction for the
management of NPS wilderness. *The NPS will manage wilderness areas for
the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will
leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness.
Management will include the protection of these areas, the preservation
of their wilderness character, and the gathering and dissemination of
information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness. The public
purpose of wilderness in the national parks includes the preservation of
wilderness character and wilderness resources in an unimpaired
condition, as well as for the purposes of recreation, scenic,
scientific, education, conservation, and historical use*.

**Director's Order 41: Wilderness Preservation and Management, 1999**
establishes specific guidelines to provide accountability, consistency,
and continuity to the NPS's wilderness management program. Topics
include wilderness management planning, management techniques, Minimum
Requirement Concept, interagency coordination, interpretation and
education, scientific activities, facilities, signs, fire management,
cultural resources, general public use, persons with disabilities,
commercial services, special events, air quality, mineral development
and training requirements.

**Pre-Existing Factors Affecting Backcountry Management**

**Inholding --** There are 3,296 acres of private inholdings within the
park boundary. The majority of the inholdings, 2,893 acres, remain
undeveloped and are identified as potential wilderness in the 1974
Wilderness Recommendation. If these areas are acquired by the NPS, they
could become wilderness. There are no inholdings within recommended
wilderness. The 1984 *Land Protection Plan* for ZION outlines how the
park will address non-federal land ownership and uses within the park
boundary. Although the plan is over 20 years old, many of the management
strategies are still appropriate today. Until the existing plan is
updated, it will continue to be the main tool the park will use to
address inholdings. The park will continue to work with inholders to
help protect adjacent park resources while continuing to use their lands
for their own purposes and enjoyment.

**Park Boundary --** The park is bordered by a mix of federal, state,
and private lands. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages lands
that border almost 57 percent of the park. State of Utah school trust
lands are found next to slightly less than 8 percent of ZION's border.
Privately owned lands border approximately 35 percent of the park. The
lands bordering the park are used for a variety of purposes, including
livestock grazing and ranching, recreation, private residences, and
commercial uses.

Private lands adjacent to the park are being developed at a rapid rate.
This development has increased incidences of illegal dog use,
all-terrain vehicle use, mountain bike use, poaching, and trail
construction, just to name a few.

Trailheads to some of the most popular backcountry areas in the park are
accessed from adjacent private property. Once these properties are
developed access may be limited or curtailed. The park must work with
adjacent land owners to secure easements to ensure that visitors have
continued access. The areas of concern include, but are not limited to
the following: Dalton Wash Trailhead/Crater Hill area, Ponderosa Ranch,
various areas in Springdale, Rockville Bench, Camp Creek, Taylor Creek,
and Chamberlain's Ranch.

**Native American Rights --** In 2005 ZION, the Kaibab Band of Paiute
Indians, the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, and the Moapa Band of Paiute
Indians signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) *Regarding the
Gathering of Plant Resources for American Indian Traditional Religious
Purposes from National Park Lands*. In general, the MOU outlines who can
collect, what can be collected, where collections can take place, and
group size during collections. This plan/EA is consistent with and
supports the MOU and does not change anything identified in the MOU.

**Other --** There are no known mineral or mining claims, rights-of-way,
or grazing permits within recommended wilderness in ZION.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488621 .anchor}**Coordination with Other Plans
and Programs**

**Previous Wilderness/Backcountry Planning Efforts**

In the early 1970s ZION began the wilderness inventory and environmental
analysis process. The Zion Wilderness Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) was completed in October 1973. The Zion Wilderness Final
EIS was completed in June of 1974 and identified 120,620 acres for
wilderness recommendation and 12,120 acres as potential wilderness. The
Secretary of the Interior forwarded the recommendation to President Ford
the same month.

Bills to designate wilderness in ZION were proposed in March of 1975
(Senate Bill S1100) and in June 1985 (House Bill HR2670). Neither bill
passed. Another attempt to designate wilderness was made in 2006 (S3636
& HR5769) with the same result.

In July 1984 the park revised the wilderness recommendation because of
the acquisition of private land and water rights, revision of State
mineral rights, and termination of all grazing rights in the park.
Recommended wilderness was now 126,585 acres, with potential wilderness
4,519 acres.

As part of the 2001 GMP process, recommended wilderness acres were again
reviewed. In a letter to the Regional Director in 1999, the park
identified 132,334 acres of recommended wilderness and 3,491 acres as
potential wilderness. Again the increased acreage was a result of
private land and water rights acquisition.

With the increased accuracy of geographic information systems (GIS) the
park refined the acreage figures for the GMP. The 2001 GMP identified
132,615 acres as recommended wilderness and 4,175 acres as potential
wilderness (Map C).

The park has worked on various backcountry management plans. A
Backcountry Management Plan was completed in 1979, which is now out of
date and no longer applicable. In 1987 the park completed a Draft
Backcountry Management Plan, but it was never finalized.

The 2001GMP identified desired conditions and management strategies for
many aspects of backcountry management. The GMP also identified interim
visitor use numbers for the backcountry.

**Other Park Plans**

The following plans outline various aspects of park management. Although
these plans are not specific to backcountry management, they all
identify the importance of the backcountry visitor experience. This
backcountry management plan is consistent with and supports the goals
and objectives identified in the following plans:

-   **Zion National Park Master Plan, May, 1977** -- Overview of
    management strategies for the park.

-   **Land Protection Plan for Zion National Park, November, 1984 --**
    Overview of protection alternatives for private lands within the
    park boundary.

Front map c

Back of map c

-   **Zion National Park General Management Plan, March 2001 --**
    Desired conditions and management strategies for all resources in
    the park.

-   **Statement for Management, Zion National Park, August 2002 --**
    Management overview of park.

-   **Zion National Park Fire Management Plan, April 2005 --** Allows
    for a full range of fire management strategies including allowing
    fire to take a natural role in ecosystem maintenance.

    []{#__RefHeading___Toc166488622 .anchor}**Scoping**

Scoping is an effort to involve agencies and the general public:

-   in determining which issues should be addresses in the EA;

-   to determine important issues to be given detailed analysis and
    eliminate issues not requiring detailed analysis;

-   allocate assignments among the interdisciplinary team members and/or
    other participating agencies;

-   identify related projects and associated documents;

-   identify permits, surveys, consultations, etc., required by other
    agencies; and

-   create a schedule that allows adequate time to prepare and
    distribute the EA for public review and comment before a final
    decision is made.

Scoping involves any interested individuals, organizations, and
agencies, or agencies with jurisdiction by law or expertise to provide
early input (including the state historic preservation office \[SHPO\]
and Indian tribes).

Early in the process, staff at ZION conducted internal scoping. This
interdisciplinary process defined the purpose and need, identified
potential actions to address the need, determined the likely issues and
impact topics and identified the relationship of the proposed action to
other planning efforts at ZION.

External scoping was initiated in August 2005 with a scoping newsletter
and press release describing the proposed action (Appendix D). The park
also hosted four public information workshops. Comments were solicited
during the scoping period that ended October 7, 2005. Over 180 comment
letters were received. A summary of the comments received can be found
in the *Consultation and Coordination* section of the document.

In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA),
letters (Appendix D) requesting tribal consultation were mailed in
August 2005 to the following tribes: Hopi Tribe, Kaibab Paiute Tribe,
Moapa Band Paiute Tribe, Northern Ute Tribe, Paiute Indian Tribe of
Utah, Southern Ute, Ute Mountain Ute, White Mesa Ute, Navajo Tribe,
Skull Valley Goshute, Goshute Indian Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, and San Juan
Southern Ute. No comments were received from any of the tribes.

The scoping comment request letter was sent to the SHPO in August 2005
(Appendix D). No comments were received. A copy of this document will be
sent to the Utah SHPO for review and comment as part of the Section 106
consultation process.

Park staff contacted the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
by letter on August 23, 2005. A reply identifying endangered and
threatened species in and around the park was received on August 31,
2005. This correspondence can be found in Appendix E. A copy of this
document will be sent to the USFWS for review and comment.

Through internal and external soping, issues associated with proposed
backcountry management activities were identified. Through issue
identification, impact topics were also identified.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488623 .anchor}**Issues and Impact Topics
Analyzed in Detail**

The impact topics identified through scoping are listed below, followed
by an issue statement. Each impact topic is described in the *Affected
Environment* section and is analyzed in the *Environmental Consequences*
section of this document.

**Wilderness**

-   The levels and intensity of backcountry use could have adverse
    effects on visitor's ability to experience outstanding opportunities
    for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.

-   Wilderness character could be affected by increased visitor use.

**Visitor Use and Experience**

-   Visitor experience in the backcountry could be affected by increased
    visitor use.

-   Visitor use could be affected by management decisions that protect
    wilderness character and values and other park resources.

**Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Animal Species**

-   The levels and intensity of backcountry use could have adverse
    effects on federally protected and sensitive animal species.

**Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species**

-   The levels and intensity of backcountry uses could have adverse
    effects on the federally threatened Shivwits milkvetch and other
    sensitive plant species.

**Vegetation**

-   The levels and intensity of backcountry uses could have adverse
    effects on vegetation.

**Soils**

-   Methods and routes of access and the intensity and levels of use in
    the backcountry could lead to adverse impacts to soils.

**Floodplains**

-   The designation of backcountry campsites in areas subject to
    occasional flooding could affect floodplain function.

    []{#__RefHeading___Toc166488624 .anchor}**Issues and Impact Topics
    Considered and Dismissed from Further Consideration**

The following issues were eliminated from further analysis for the
reasons stated below.

**Wetlands**

Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) requires the examination
of impacts to wetlands. Wetlands occur in the park along river margins
and floodplains, and as isolated wetlands associated with springs,
seeps, and small impoundments. The area of the park that consists of
wetlands is very small - 191 acres have been mapped or about 0.1 percent
of the park. There are no proposed actions in this plan/EA that would
affect wetlands or their function. Therefore, wetlands will not be
analyzed in this EA.

**Prime and Unique Farmlands**

In 1980, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) directed federal
agencies to assess the effects of their actions on farmland soils
classified as prime or unique by the United States Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Prime farmland is
land that has the best combination of physical and chemical
characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed
crops, and is also available for these uses (the land could be cropland,
pastureland, rangeland, forest land, or other land, but not urban
built-up land or water). Unique farmland is land other than prime
farmland that is used for the production of specific high value food and
fiber crops (CEQ 1980). According to Natural Resource Conservation
Service maps, there are no prime or unique farmlands within the park.
Therefore, prime and unique farmlands will not be analyzed in this EA.

**Lightscapes**

In accordance with NPS *Management Policies 2006*, the NPS strives to
preserve natural ambient lightscapes, which are natural resources and
values that exist in the absence of human-caused light. There are no
actions proposed in this EA that would adversely affect lightscapes in
the park. Therefore, lightscapes will not be analyzed in this EA.

**Air Quality**

The 1963 Clean Air Act provides that the federal land manager (the
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks and the park
Superintendent) has an affirmative responsibility to protect the park's
air quality-related values (including visibility, plants, animals,
soils, water quality, cultural and historic resources and objects, and
visitor health) from adverse air pollution impacts. Section 118 of the
1963 Clean Air Act requires the park to meet all federal, state, and
local air pollution standards. Section 176(c) of the Act requires all
federal activities and projects to conform to state air quality
implementation plans to attain and maintain national ambient air quality
standards. NPS *Management Policies 2006* also addresses the need to
analyze potential impacts to air quality during park planning.

ZION is classified as a class I air quality area under the Clean Air
Act, as amended. The park's class I air quality would not be affected by
any proposal in this EA. Therefore, air quality will not be analyzed in
this EA.

**Natural Soundscapes**

An important part of the NPS mission is preservation of natural
soundscapes associated with NPS units. Natural soundscapes exist in the
absence of human-caused sound. The natural ambient soundscape is the
aggregate of all natural sounds that occur in park units, together with
the physical capacity for transmitting natural sounds. Natural sounds
occur within and beyond the range of sounds that humans can perceive and
can be transmitted through air, water, or solid materials. The
frequency, magnitude, and duration of human-caused sound considered
acceptable varies among NPS units, as well as throughout each park unit,
being generally greater in developed areas and less in undeveloped
areas.

Any proposal to use motorized tools, equipment or vehicles (aircraft)
within the backcountry would be analyzed through the Minimum Requirement
Analysis process on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, natural soundscapes
will not be analyzed in this EA.

**Water Quality**

The 1972 Federal Water Pollution Act, as amended by the Clean Water Act
of 1977, is a national policy to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters; to enhance
the quality of water resources; and to prevent, control and abate water
pollution. NPS *Management Policies 2006* provide direction for the
preservation, use, and quality of water in NPS units. No new actions
proposed in this plan/EA would affect water quality. ZION will continue
to educate backcountry visitors on proper waste disposal and other Leave
No Trace techniques. Therefore, water quality will not be analyzed in
this EA.

**Environmental Justice**

Executive Order 12898 (General Actions to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations) requires all
agencies to incorporate environmental justice into their missions by
identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of their programs and policies on
minorities and low-income communities.

The alternatives analyzed in this document would not result in any
identified effects that would be specific to any minority or low-income
community. Therefore, environmental justice will not be analyzed in this
EA.

**Indian Trust Resources**

Secretarial Order 3175 requires that any anticipated impacts to Indian
trust resources from a proposed project or action by the U.S. Department
of the Interior agencies be explicitly addressed in environmental
documents. The federal Indian trust responsibility is a legally
enforceable fiduciary obligation on the part of the United States to
protect tribal lands, assets, resources, and treaty rights. It
represents the duty to carry out the mandates of federal law with
respect to American Indian and Alaska Native tribes. There are no Indian
trust resources in ZION. The lands comprising the park are not held in
trust by the Secretary of the Interior for the benefit of Indians due to
their status as Indian. Therefore, Indian trust resources will not be
analyzed in this EA.

**Archeological Resources**

Approximately 13 percent of the park has been surveyed for archeological
resources. Over 400 sites, both prehistoric and historic, have been
documented. Many of these sites are artifact scatters, containing
prehistoric flaked stone tools and ceramics or historic period tin cans
and bottles. Other site types include caves and rock shelters with
cultural deposits, rock art sites, historic sawmills, erosion control
features, historic roads and trails, and early 20^th^ century oil wells.
The only actions described in this EA (routine maintenance or
rehabilitation of backcountry trails or campsites) that could
potentially affect any of these archeological resources are currently
covered under the *1995 Programmatic Agreement Among the NPS, the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the National Conference of
State Historic Preservation Officers*. Therefore, there would be no
adverse effects to archeological resources and they will not be analyzed
in this EA.

**Historic Structures**

Historic structures are constructed works that are architecturally
designed or engineered to serve a human activity. These may include
buildings, roads, trails, bridges, irrigation ditches, or earthen berms.
In ZION's backcountry the following properties and districts are listed
on the National Register: Parunuweap Canyon Archaeological District --
includes 36 prehistoric archeological sites; West Rim Trail; East Rim
Trail; and Cable Mountain Draw Works. The only actions described in this
EA (routine maintenance or rehabilitation of backcountry trails or
campsites) that could potentially affect any of these historic
structures are currently covered under the *1995 Programmatic Agreement
Among the NPS, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the
National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers*. Therefore,
there would be no adverse effects to historic structures and they will
not be analyzed in this EA.

**Ethnographic Resources**

The NPS defines ethnographic resources as any: *...site, structure,
object, landscape, or natural resource feature assigned traditional
legendary, religious, subsistence, or other significance in the cultural
system of a group traditionally associated with it* (Director's Order-28
-- *Cultural Resource Management Guideline*). As part of scoping,
letters were sent to 13 affiliated American Indian tribes asking for
comments and concerns about the proposed action. The park did not
receive any comments or concerns from any tribes. And since specific
locations of ethnographic resources within the backcountry are not known
to park staff, ethnographic resources will not be analyzed in this EA.

**Cultural Landscapes**

Cultural landscapes are areas associated with a historic event,
activity, person, or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values. NPS
*Management Policies 2006* section 5.3.5.2 states: *...cultural
landscapes will preserve significant physical attributes, biotic
systems, and uses when those uses contribute to historical
significance.* There are no known cultural landscapes within the study
area. Therefore, cultural landscapes will not be analyzed in this EA.

**Museum Collections**

Museum collections include historic artifacts, natural specimens, and
archival and manuscript material. They may be threatened by fire,
vandalism, natural disasters, and careless acts. The preservation of
museum collections is an ongoing process of preventative conservation,
supplemented by conservation treatment, when necessary. The primary goal
is preservation of artifacts in as stable condition as possible to
prevent damage and minimize deterioration. The activities proposed in
this plan would not affect the museum objects of ZION and there is
little potential to add objects to the collections. Therefore, museum
collections will not be analyzed in this EA.

**Park Operations**

Park operations can be defined as the infrastructure (e.g., roads,
trails, buildings, utilities) used by visitors to experience the park
and the ability of the NPS to maintain the infrastructure and protect
the resources and values that makeup the park. This plan/EA does not
identify any additional backcountry infrastructure that would require
construction or maintenance. The visitor use and resource monitoring
identified in this plan/EA would be included as part of regular
backcountry patrols. There would be no change in staffing to accomplish
the monitoring. Therefore, park operations will not be analyzed in this
EA.

**Energy Requirements/Depletable Resource Requirements and Conservation
Potential**

None of the alternatives would affect energy depletable resource
requirements or conservation potential to the extent that detailed
analysis would be required. Therefore, this topic will not be analyzed
in this EA.

**Economic Considerations**

There are no proposed actions in this plan/EA that would change any
local, regional, or national economic patterns. Therefore, economic
considerations will not be analyzed in this EA.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488625 .anchor}**ALTERNATIVES**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488626 .anchor}**Introduction**

This section describes the alternatives analyzed in this document:
Alternative A -- No Action/Current Management and Alternative B --
Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative. In many ways the alternatives are
similar. The Proposed Action differs from Current Management by:
formalizing carrying capacities based on VERP studies; identifies a
strategy to monitor the effects of visitor use on park resources and
visitor experience; identifies indicators, standards, and management
options as part of the monitoring strategy; and addresses commercial use
in the backcountry. A comparison of the alternatives is found in Table
17. And alternatives considered but dismissed from further consideration
are also discussed in this section.

The management of mountain bike use and river recreation in the park
were brought up during scoping. These activities are beyond the scope of
this plan/EA, so they will not be addressed further for the following
reasons.

-   **Mountain Bike Use --** NPS *Management Policies 2006* section
    6.4.3.3 states: *Public use of motorized equipment or any form of
    mechanized transport will be prohibited in wilderness except as
    provided for in specific legislation. Operating a motor vehicle or
    possessing a bicycle within designated wilderness outside Alaska is
    prohibited* (36 CFR 4.30(d)(1). As stated on Director's Order-41,
    the NPS manages recommended wilderness: *to preserve their
    wilderness character and values undiminished until Congress acts in
    the recommendations. Decisions will be made in the expectation of
    eventual wilderness designation.* Therefore, any mechanized
    transport, including mountain bikes are not allowed in recommended
    wilderness in ZION.

-   R**iver Recreation --** This plan/EA addresses many aspects of
    management for the portion of the North Fork of the Virgin River
    from the northern park boundary to the junction of the North Fork
    and Mystery Canyon. It does not address river recreation within the
    developed portion of Zion Canyon. A river management plan could be
    developed in the future if issues are identified regarding water
    quality, soil erosion, sensitive species, or the disturbance of
    visitors through any portion of the North Fork.

    []{#__RefHeading___Toc166488627 .anchor}**Alternative A --** **No
    Action/Current Management**

**Description of the Alternative**

The No Action Alternative describes backcountry management as it exists
today. Many of the management actions identified below were made through
the 2001 GMP and were considered interim until this backcountry plan/EA
was completed.

**Zone Descriptions (Existing)**

All backcountry areas in ZION are within one of four Management Zones
designated in the 2001 GMP (Map D). Each Management Zone is described in
terms of the desired resource condition, visitor experience, management
and scientific uses, and appropriate kinds of activities and
developments.

**Pristine Zone**

The Pristine Zone includes 119,446 acres. This zone offers the feeling
of being entirely alone in ZION's remote and isolated wildlands. The
zone provides visitors a chance to experience a natural landscape. Use
of these areas is low and group encounters infrequent.

**Visitor Use**

-   Day and overnight use.

-   Visitors would usually not expect to encounter other groups in this
    zone.

-   The group size would be limited to 12 people.

-   Visitor use in canyons would be managed by backcountry permit and
    would be limited to12 people per day per canyon.

-   Day use in areas other than canyons, group size and numbers of
    groups are not currently limited through a permit system.

-   Day use could be limited by implementation of a permit system if use
    regularly exceeds 12 people per day per route.

-   Overnight camping would be managed by backcountry permit and limited
    to 12 people per day per area.

**Management**

-   Trails would not be designated. Non-designated routes and paths
    only.

-   Existing routes would reflect the character of wilderness and would
    be managed to maintain the wilderness resource.

-   Maintenance and/or construction of trails could be allowed as needed
    for resource protection.

-   Routes and paths could be defined and maintained if necessary to
    prevent resource damage.

-   Directional and location signs, with or without mileages, would
    generally not be present.

-   Directional signs could be necessary to reduce incidents of visitor
    injury or rescue or to promote resource protection.

-   Visitors would continue to camp throughout the zone, although in
    some cases, campsites could be designated to protect resources.

-   Alteration of the rock would be prohibited; this includes scarring,
    chiseling holds, gluing handholds or footholds onto existing rock
    and otherwise defacing natural rock.

-   A "clean-climbing" or minimum impact ethic would be encouraged; use
    of pitons would be discouraged.

-   Climbs could be temporarily or permanently closed for threatened and
    endangered wildlife species protection or other resource issues.
    Closures would be kept to the minimum to protect the identified
    resource.

-   The number of new climbs would not be monitored or limited.

-   Access to climbs along established and marked routes would be
    encouraged.

-   Use of power drills would be prohibited and excess bolting would be
    discouraged.

-   The use of subdued colors for slings, bolts, webbing, chalk, and
    other paraphernalia would be encouraged.

-   Overnight bivouacs on climbing routes would be managed by
    backcountry permit.

-   Overnight climbers must tube waste and carry it out.

-   Stock use would be prohibited.

-   Commercial use would be prohibited.

-   The zone encompasses all fire management units and strategies with
    mitigation such as Minimum Requirement Analysis and minimum impact
    suppression techniques.

-   Aircraft or motorized equipment would not be allowed (except during
    emergency operations or absolutely critical for the protection of
    natural and cultural resources as determined on a case-by-case basis
    through a Minimum Requirement Analysis and approved by the
    Superintendent).

**Primitive Zone**

The Primitive Zone includes 16,480 acres. This zone provides
opportunities for visitors to experience wildlands and solitude. The
landscape is largely undisturbed, with natural processes predominating.
However, compared to the Pristine Zone, access is easier into this zone,
there are signs of people, and the area feels less remote.

**Visitor Use**

-   Day and overnight use.

-   Group size would be limited to 12 people.

-   Visitors would not expect to encounter more than 12 groups per day.

-   Visitor use in canyons would be managed by backcountry permit and
    limited to 50 people per day per canyon.

-   Visitor use in the Narrows would be limited to 80 people per day for
    through hikes and managed by backcountry permit.

-   For technical rock climbing group size would be limited to 12
    people; the numbers of groups would not be limited.

-   In day use areas other than canyons that require a permit, visitor
    use could be limited by implementation of a permit system if use
    regularly exceeds 50 people per day per trail.

-   Stock group size would be limited to 6 animals and 6 people per day.

-   Stock parties would expect to encounter no more than one other stock
    party in a single day.

**Management**

-   Trails would be designated and maintained (Map E).

-   Existing trails and routes would reflect the character of wilderness
    and managed to maintain the wilderness resource.

-   Routes and paths could be defined and maintained if necessary to
    prevent resource damage.

-   Directional and location signs with or without mileages would be
    present on all maintained trails.

-   Directional signs could be present along heavily used routes if
    necessary to ensure visitor safety or resource protection.

Font of map D

Back of map D

Front of map e

Back of map e

-   Camping would be managed by permit and most camping would be in
    designated sites.

-   Narrows: 72 people per night in 12 designated campsites (Map F).

-   LaVerkin Creek: 90 people per night in 17 designated campsites (Map
    F).

-   Hop Valley: 26 people per night in 3 designated campsites (Map F).

-   West Rim: 56 people per night in 9 designated campsites. (Map F).

-   Areas open to at-large camping: East Rim, Lower Right Fork, and
    Wildcat Canyon Trail would be limited to 50 people per night.
    Southwest desert would be limited to 30 people per night.

-   Areas open to at-large camping could be converted to designated
    campsite to protect resources.

-   Alteration of the rock would be prohibited; this includes scarring,
    chiseling holds, gluing handholds or footholds onto existing rock
    and otherwise defacing natural rock.

-   A "clean-climbing" or minimum impact ethic would be encouraged; use
    of pitons would be discouraged.

-   Climbs could be temporarily or permanently closed for threatened and
    endangered wildlife species protection or other resource issues.
    Closures would be kept to the minimum to protect the identified
    resource.

-   The number of new climbs would not be monitored or limited.

-   Access to climbs along established and marked routes would be
    encouraged.

-   Use of power drills would be prohibited and excess bolting would be
    discouraged.

-   The use of subdued colors for slings, bolts, webbing, chalk, and
    other paraphernalia would be encouraged.

-   Overnight bivouacs on climbing routes would be managed by
    backcountry permit.

-   Overnight climbers must tube waste and carry it out.

-   Stock would be limited to horses, mules, and burros.

-   Stock must be fed certified weed-free feed 24 hours prior to
    entering the park and while they are in the park.

-   Trails would be closed to stock use during periods of wet weather or
    due to other resources concerns.

-   Stock use would be allowed on the following designated trails:
    Chinle Trail to Coalpits Wash, West Rim Trail from Lava Point to
    Cabin Springs and the Telephone Canyon Trail, Wildcat Canyon Trail
    and Northgate Peaks Trail, Connecter Trail, Hop Valley Trail,
    LaVerkin Creek Trail from Lee Pass to junction with Beartrap Canyon,
    East Mesa Trail from east park boundary to junction with Observation
    Point Trail (not allowed to Observation Point), East Rim Trail from
    East Entrance and east park boundary to Cable and Deer Trap
    Mountains (Map E).

-   Off-trail use would only be allowed in the lower Coalpits Wash from
    the trailhead to the junction with Scoggins Wash, Scoggins Wash
    itself and the Stock Trail, and Huber Wash where the surrounding
    terrain confines use to the wash bottom (Map E).

-   Overnight camping with stock would be allowed at one designated
    campsite in Hop Valley (Site A) and is limited to a one night stay
    (Map F).

-   Commercial use would be prohibited.

-   The zone encompasses all fire management units and strategies with
    mitigation such as Minimum Requirement Analysis and minimum impact
    suppression techniques.

-   Aircraft or motorized equipment would not be allowed (except during
    emergency operations or absolutely critical for the protection of
    natural and cultural resources as determined on a case-by-case basis
    through a Minimum Requirement Analysis and approved by the
    Superintendent).

**Transition Zone**

A portion of the Transition Zone lies within recommended wilderness and
includes the Observation Point Trail, the lower Narrows from Mystery
Falls upstream to Orderville Canyon and Timber Creek Overlook Trail.
Encounters with other hikers would be high in these areas.

**Visitor Use**

-   Day hiker group size or numbers of hikers per day would not limited
    by permit.

-   The Observation Point trail, Timber Creek trail, and the lower
    Narrows from Orderville Canyon south to Mystery Canyon would be
    managed as special transition zones since they lie within
    recommended wilderness. They would be maintained to meet wilderness
    requirements but allow higher use levels than the majority of the
    recommended wilderness.

**Management**

-   Trails would be designated and maintained (Map E).

-   Trails would be signed.

-   Backcountry camping would be prohibited.

-   Alteration of the rock would be prohibited; this includes scarring,
    chiseling holds, gluing handholds or footholds onto existing rock
    and otherwise defacing natural rock.

-   A "clean-climbing" or minimum impact ethic would be encouraged; use
    of pitons would be discouraged.

-   Climbs could be temporarily or permanently closed for threatened and
    endangered wildlife species protection or other resource issues.
    Closures would be kept to the minimum to protect the identified
    resource.

-   The number of new climbs would not be monitored or limited.

-   Access to climbs along established and marked routes would be
    encouraged.

-   Use of power drills would be prohibited and excess bolting would be
    discouraged.

-   The use of subdued colors for slings, bolts, webbing, chalk, and
    other paraphernalia would be encouraged.

-   Overnight bivouacs on climbing routes would be managed by
    backcountry permit.

-   Overnight climbers must tube waste and carry it out.

-   Stock use would be prohibited in the Transition Zone within
    recommended wilderness.

-   Commercial use would be prohibited.

-   Zone is within the Suppression and Conditional fire management units
    and would be subject to all fire management strategies with
    mitigation such as Minimum Requirement Analysis and minimum impact
    suppression techniques.

-   Aircraft or motorized equipment would not be allowed (except during
    emergency operations or absolutely critical for the protection of
    natural and cultural resources as determined on a case-by-case basis
    through a Minimum Requirement Analysis and approved by the
    Superintendent).

**Research Natural Area Zone**

The Research Natural Area Zone covers 9,031 acres and includes nine
areas. This zone applies the intent of the national network of "research
natural areas," which are field ecological areas designated primarily
for research and education and/or to maintain biological diversity.
Baseline inventory and long-term ecological observations are emphasized
in this zone, with the primary purpose of creating an
ecological/environmental benchmark over time.

**General**

-   Areas would be closed to recreational use.

Front of map F

Back of map F

-   Areas would be limited to research and some educational trips by
    permit only.

-   Group size would be limited to 12 people per day.

-   Trails would not be designated or maintained.

-   Routes would generally be non-discernable.

-   Signs or cairns would not be allowed.

-   Campsites would not be designated.

-   Stock use would be prohibited.

-   Commercial use would be prohibited.

-   Aircraft or motorized equipment would not be allowed (except during
    emergency operations or absolutely critical for the protection of
    natural and cultural resources as determined on a case-by-case basis
    through a Minimum Requirement Analysis and approved by the
    Superintendent).

    []{#__RefHeading___Toc166488628 .anchor}**Alternative B -- Proposed
    Action/Preferred Alternative**

**Description of the Alternative**

Alternative B -- Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative would guide the
NPS in providing opportunities for a variety of backcountry recreational
activities and experiences while recognizing and protecting the
wilderness resource values of ZION's backcountry. Backcountry visitor
use management decisions would be based on standards developed through
the NPS Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) process.

In this document Alternative B is divided into two broad sections. The
first section outlines Management Zone related/dependent conditions,
actions, and activities. The second section provides more detail on the
zone dependent conditions, actions, and activities; and provides detail
for conditions, actions, and activities that are common to all zones
under this alternative.

**Management Zones/Desired Conditions**

All backcountry areas in ZION are within one of four Management Zones
designated in the GMP approved in 2001 (Map D). The zone descriptions
below are the same as those described for the No Action Alternative.
Although, the visitor use and resource management actions described
below may differ from those in the No Action Alternative. Each
management zone is described in terms of the desired resource condition,
visitor experience, management and scientific uses, and appropriate
kinds of activities and developments.

**Pristine Zone**

The Pristine Zone, 119,446 acres, includes routes such as Mystery Canyon
and Heaps Canyon. This zone offers the feeling of being entirely alone
in ZION's remote and isolated wildlands. The zone provides visitors a
chance to experience a natural landscape. Visitor use in these areas is
low and group encounters are infrequent.

**Visitor Use**

-   Day and overnight use.

-   In general use is low. Visitors would not expect to encounter more
    than 2-groups per day.

-   Visitors would not expect to encounter other groups larger than 6
    people.

-   A group size limit of 6 would be initiated for technical canyons.

-   The group size limit would remain at 12 elsewhere in zone. Group
    encounters would be monitored and if encounters with larger groups
    occur, the group size limit of 12 would be reduced (Tables 5 & 6).

-   Use limits would be based on VERP indicators and standards (Table
    15).

**Access and challenge**

-   Generally moderate to difficult, all areas requiring specialized
    skills.

**Opportunity for solitude**

-   Outstanding opportunities for solitude.

-   Chance of seeing other visitor/park staff would be low.

-   Natural sounds prevail.

**Acceptable resource conditions**

-   Resources managed to perpetuate natural conditions and processes.

-   Natural landscape predominates.

-   Only sign of human-use would be faint hiking routes and bolts on
    climbing and canyoneering routes.

-   Some resources may be altered to restore an area that has been
    disturbed or to preserve cultural resources.

**Management**

-   Trails would not be designated.

-   Routes would generally be non-discernable. Short sections of routes
    may be maintained to prevent erosion or other resource degradation.

-   Signs or cairns would only be erected to protect resources or for
    safety concerns.

-   Designated campsites could be established to protect cultural or
    natural resources.

-   Stock use would be prohibited.

-   Commercial use would be prohibited.

-   Aircraft or motorized equipment would not be allowed (except during
    emergency operations or absolutely critical for the protection of
    natural or cultural resources as determined on a case-by-case basis
    through a Minimum Requirement Analysis and approved by the
    Superintendent).

**Primitive Zone**

The Primitive Zone, 16,480 acres, includes such areas as the West Rim
Trail and the Narrows. This zone provides opportunities for visitors to
experience wildlands and solitude. The landscape is largely undisturbed,
with natural processes predominating. However, compared to the Pristine
Zone, access is easier into this zone, there are signs of people, and
the area feels less remote.

**Use**

-   Day and overnight use.

-   Visitors would not expect to encounter more than 10 other groups per
    day (Table 15).

-   Group size limit would be 12.

-   Use limits would be based on VERP indicators and standards (Table
    15).

-   Stock group size would be limited to 6 people and 6 animals per day.

-   Stock parties would expect to encounter no more than one other stock
    party in a single day.

**Access and challenge**

-   Generally moderate to difficult, some areas requiring specialized
    skills.

**Opportunity for solitude**

-   Some outstanding opportunities for solitude.

-   During the high-use season, visitors should expect to see other
    visitors/park staff.

-   Natural sounds prevail.

**Acceptable resource conditions**

-   Resources managed to perpetuate natural conditions and processes.

-   Some resources may be altered to restore an area that has been
    disturbed or to preserve cultural resources.

**Management**

-   Trails would be designated and maintained (Map E).

-   Routes would be generally discernable, although not maintained
    except to protect resource values.

-   Signs and cairns would be allowed.

-   Designated campsites would be in place on the West Rim Trail, the
    Narrows, LaVerkin Creek, and Coalpits/Chinle area; at large camping
    would be allowed elsewhere in the zone unless VERP standards are
    exceeded. If standards are exceeded campsites could be designated
    (Table 14 & Map F).

-   Stock would be limited to horses, mules, and burros.

-   Stock must be fed certified weed-free feed 24 hours prior to
    entering the park and while they are in the park.

-   Trails would be closed to stock use during periods of wet weather or
    due to other resources concerns.

-   Stock use would be allowed on the following designated trails:
    Chinle Trail to Coalpits Wash, West Rim Trail from Lava Point to
    Cabin Springs and the Telephone Canyon Trail, Wildcat Canyon Trail
    and Northgate Peaks Trail, Connecter Trail, Hop Valley Trail,
    LaVerkin Creek Trail from Lee Pass to junction with Beartrap Canyon,
    East Mesa Trail from east park boundary to junction with Observation
    Point Trail (not allowed out to Observation Point), East Rim Trail
    from East Entrance and east park boundary to Cable and Deer Trap
    Mountains (Map E).

-   Off-trail use would only be allowed in the lower Coalpits Wash from
    the trailhead to the junction with Scoggins Wash, Scoggins Wash
    itself and the Stock Trail, and Huber Wash where the surrounding
    terrain confines use to the wash bottom (Map E).

-   Overnight camping with stock would be allowed at one designated
    campsite in Hop Valley (Site A) and is limited to a one night stay
    (Map F).

-   Commercial use would be prohibited.

-   Aircraft or motorized equipment would not be allowed (except during
    emergency operations or absolutely critical for the protection of
    natural or cultural resources as determined on a case-by-case basis
    through a Minimum Requirement Analysis and approved by the
    Superintendent).

**Transition Zone**

A portion of the Transition Zone lies within recommended wilderness and
includes the Observation Point Trail, the lower Narrows from Mystery
Falls upstream to Orderville Canyon and Timber Creek Overlook Trail.
Encounters with other hikers would be high.

**Use**

-   Day use only.

-   Use would be very high.

-   Group size limits and the numbers of groups per day would not be
    limited by permit. Unless use limits exceed VERP standards (Table
    15).

**Access and challenge**

-   Access relatively easy.

**Opportunity for solitude**

-   Some opportunities for solitude.

-   Chance of seeing other visitor/park staff is very high.

-   Natural sounds can predominate depending on the time of day and
    year.

**Acceptable resource conditions**

-   Resource conditions would be managed on the basis of VERP indicators
    and standards (Table 14).

**Management**

-   Trails would be designated and maintained (Map E).

-   Trails would be signed.

-   Backcountry camping would be prohibited.

-   Stock use would be prohibited in the Transition Zone within
    recommended wilderness.

-   Limited commercial interpretive guiding would be allowed, by permit,
    on specified trails: Observation Point Trail, lower Narrows from
    Mystery Falls upstream to Orderville Canyon, and Timber Creek
    Overlook Trail.

-   Aircraft or motorized equipment would not be allowed (except during
    emergency operations or absolutely critical for the protection of
    natural and cultural resources as determined on a case-by-case basis
    through a Minimum Requirement Analysis and approved by the
    Superintendent).

**Research Natural Area Zone**

The Research Natural Area Zone covers 9,031 acres and includes nine
areas. This zone applies the intent of the national network of "research
natural areas," which are field ecological areas designated primarily
for research and education and/or to maintain biological diversity.
Baseline inventory and long-term ecological observations are emphasized
in this zone, with the primary purpose of creating an
ecological/environmental benchmark over time.

**General**

-   Areas closed to recreation use.

-   Group size for researchers would be 6, unless a larger group size is
    critical for the protection of natural or cultural resources. This
    would be determined on a case-by-case basis through a Minimum
    Requirement Analysis and approved by the Superintendent.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Trails would not be designated or maintained.

-   Routes would generally be non-discernable.

-   Signs or cairns would not be allowed.

-   Campsites would not be designated.

-   Stock use would be prohibited.

-   Commercial use would be prohibited.

-   Aircraft or motorized equipment would not be allowed (except during
    emergency operations or absolutely critical for the protection of
    natural and cultural resources as determined on a case-by-case basis
    through a Minimum Requirement Analysis and approved by the
    Superintendent).

**Management Common to All Zones & Detailed Zone Specific Management**

This section applies to the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative and
provides detailed information for some actions and activities described
above by zone. This section also outlines conditions, activities, and
actions that are common to all management zones. This section is divided
into Resource Conditions, Visitor Experience Conditions, and
Administrative Conditions and Management Activities.

**Resource Conditions**

**Native Vegetation**

The elevation gradients, topography, and geologic substrates create a
diverse flora in ZION. The park is home to over 800 species of native
plants, including one federally protected endangered species -- the
Shivwits milkvetch. The Shivwits milkvetch has an extremely limited
range: it grows only on the Chinle Formation. ZION hosts the largest
population of this endangered species and has the greatest area
designated as critical habitat (1,201 acres). Plant populations would
continue to be monitored. Management actions to ensure that the species
are protected may be applied as outlined in Table 14.

ZION also hosts 22 species considered sensitive by the park and the
state of Utah because of their limited distribution or are disjunct from
more abundant population centers. Many of these and other native plants
and the communities they inhabit are still in a natural condition.
Increasing visitor use in backcountry areas can impact these
communities. The park would continue to balance the enjoyment of
visitors to the backcountry and the protection of native vegetation.
Table 14 identifies indicators and standards that would assist park
managers with monitoring and implementing strategies to reach this goal.

**Use of Native Materials**

In keeping with wilderness character, natural materials are preferred to
repair or construct wilderness facilities (e.g., water bars, sign posts,
tent pads) or restore desired conditions to impacted areas. Any proposed
rehabilitation or construction would need to go through the
Environmental Screening Process including the completion of the Minimum
Requirement Analysis (Appendix B) and approval from the wilderness
committee.

**Non-native Vegetation**

The establishment of non-native/noxious plants is one of the greatest
threats to the integrity and biological diversity of the park. There are
over 100 non-native plants in the park, 12 of which are high priority
for control and eradication. Most of these species occur in areas of
past or current disturbance. Many of these species can out-compete
native species because they have different growth cycles (i.e., sprout
earlier in the season and absorb all available water and nutrients),
have no natural predators, or produces substances that prohibit the
growth of competing native plants.

The park has an active program to control the spread of non-native
species. Control efforts would continue, especially in riparian areas,
along trails, and where past livestock grazing has occurred.

**Social Trails**

Social trails are defined as those trails that are non-designated and
undesirable. They are trails made by people short cutting to campsites,
water sources, etc. Social trails (braided) are also prevalent in some
canyon bottoms where visitors simply walk where ever they choose. They
generally cause resource impacts such as soil erosion and vegetation
damage.

Eradication of social trails continues to be a priority in ZION. The
indicators and standards in Table 14 would assist the park in monitoring
and providing management strategies to help mitigate this problem.

**Fish and Wildlife**

The diverse plant communities within the park support a variety of
wildlife species. ZION is home to 6 species of amphibians, 28 species of
reptiles, 79 mammal species, 289 bird species, and 7 fish species.

Threatened and endangered species management would continue to be
closely coordinated with the USFWS. Management and use restrictions may
be necessary to protect these species. In Mexican spotted owl nesting
areas, use levels would be kept at or below existing use limits. The
park would continue to monitor nest sites and if disruption to nesting
occurs because of visitor use, this use could be adjusted (Table 14).

Wildlife would be protected as much as possible from incidences of
humans touching, feeding, teasing, frightening, and generally harassing
wildlife. This would mainly be accomplished through visitor education.
Although, temporary closures of, or use limits in specific areas may be
necessary to protect wildlife during critical periods of time or in
critical habitats (i.e., climbing closures during peregrine falcon
nesting).

**Fire Management**

The Fire Management Plan (FMP) completed in 2005 outlines fire
management strategies and identifies four fire management units for the
park. The FMP identifies the use of the Minimum Requirement Analysis
(Appendix B) and minimum impact suppression techniques. The area
addressed in this plan/EA overlay all four fire management units (FMU)
as follows:

-   Suppression FMU -- along most of the park boundary; focus to
    minimize threat of fire to life and property.

-   Modified FMU -- along part of park boundary and buffer to
    Suppression FMU; focus to allow fire to maintain its natural role
    while protecting life, property and resources.

-   Conditional FMU -- interior of the park and the largest area; fire
    would be managed to perform its natural role in ecosystem
    maintenance.

-   Natural FMU -- encompasses isolated mesa tops, slickrock areas,
    Research Natural Areas where risk to life and property is low; fire
    allowed to continue its natural role in ecosystem maintenance.

The following five fire management strategies can be used to varying
degrees and with mitigation in the above FMUs unless otherwise stated
below:

-   Wildland Fire Use Strategy -- naturally ignited wildland fire would
    be managed to accomplish specific resource management goals (not
    allowed in Suppression FMU).

-   Prescribed Fire Strategy -- used to reduce hazard fuels,
    remove/reduce non-native plant species, restore natural ecosystems,
    etc.

-   Mechanical Strategy -- used to reduce fuels as a stand-alone
    treatment or in combination with other treatments in preparation for
    prescribed fire or restoration.

-   Herbicide Strategy -- used on a limited basis and only after all
    other options have been considered.

**Cultural Resources**

In general, cultural resources in ZION's backcountry are in good
condition and do not show impacts from visitation. Cultural sites would
continue to be monitored and management actions taken if visitor use
begins to affect sites (Table 14). Mitigation to minimize the impacts to
cultural sites from proposals outlined in this plan/EA can be found in
the *Mitigation Measures for Alternative B* section of this document.

There is still a great deal of work to be done to truly understand the
human history of this area. Any proposed surveys or excavations would go
through the Environmental Screening Process and Minimum Requirement
Analysis (Appendix B) to determine any impacts to wilderness values.

**Visitor Experience Conditions**

**Overview of Group Encounter Rates and Group Size Limits**

The GMP set interim visitor encounter rates and group size limits for
backcountry settings. The GMP's interim use limits were intended to be
place until the completion of VERP studies and this backcountry
management plan/EA.

As part of the VERP study, qualitative surveys were conducted with
several groups of backcountry visitors during the summer and fall of
2002 and 2003 (Manning et. al., 2004). Surveys addressed baseline data
on visitor use and users and potential indicators of the quality of the
visitor experience (Tables 1 & 2).

The results of this survey indicate that when given the concrete options
to choose from, visitors were generally willing to accept the risks of
not getting access to ensure high quality trail conditions. Second the
visitors perceived purposes of the park explained the majority of the
variance in visitor decision making. Among the implications of these
results are that visitors can and will deliberate on proposed management
actions in ways that consider an impact on their personal experience. In
this case, visitors were overwhelmingly willing to sacrifice aspects of
their experience for the good of the park environment.

Visitors whose view of the park was dominantly as an ecological reserve
were most willing to sacrifice theirs and others experiences in order to
protect natural and cultural resources. It is also notable that visitors
with this natural value orientation continue to be willing to make a
trade-off even as the probability of permit denial increases. This
illustrates that visitors with a natural value orientation toward the
park, make the big decision when deciding that a trade-off is
appropriate and that subsequent increments or probabilities of denial
have little influence on the decision. This value orientation was
dominant among the surveys and is consistent with the purpose and
significance of ZION. While visitors who saw the park primarily as a
recreation area were less willing to sacrifice their experience, they
were largely still willing to make some trade-off (Tables 3 & 4).

Encounter rates are a primary means by which opportunities for solitude
would be measured. Encounters would be monitored by all ZION employees
completing backcountry trips. If these trips do not mimic those taken by
the general public, those differences would be taken into account prior
to implementing management actions.

A visitor experience standard has been proposed for Transition Zone
within recommended wilderness. This is because there are no group size
limits and encounter rates would be difficult to measure or control. The
standard would be based on the level of satisfaction of the visitors
hiking experience (Table 15).

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table 1: VERP                                            
  Survey Data                                                
  2002**                                                     
  --------------- ---------------- ----------- ------------- -------------
  **Area          **Permit         **Sample    **Percent     **Survey
  Surveyed**      Required**       Size**      Response**    Method**

  Trails -- Day   No               357         80            On-site
  Use                                                        

  Canyons -- Day  Yes              204         78            Mail-back
  Use                                                        

  Camping --      Yes              133         74            Mail-back
  Overnight                                                  

  Data from                                                  
  *Research to                                               
  Support                                                    
  Application of                                             
  the VERP                                                   
  Framework at                                               
  ZION* (2004).                                              
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table 2: VERP                                                 
  Survey Data 2003**                                              
  ------------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- -----------
  **Area Surveyed**  **Permit       **Sample       **Percent      **Survey
                     Required**     Size**         Response**     Method**

  West Rim Trail --  No             159            80             On-site
  Day use                                                         

  Narrows -- Day use No             213            88             On-site

  East Rim -- Day    No             138            87             On-site
  use                                                             

  Camping --         Yes            91             44             Mail-back
  Overnight                                                       

  Narrows -- Day use Yes            80             67             Mail-back

  Canyons -- Day use Yes            169            65             Mail-back

  Data from                                                       
  *Research to                                                    
  Support                                                         
  Application of the                                              
  VERP Framework at                                               
  ZION* (2004).                                                   
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **Table 3: Visitor           |       |       |       |       |       |
| Acceptance of Management     |       |       |       |       |       |
| Options for Slot Canyons**   |       |       |       |       |       |
+==============================+=======+=======+=======+=======+=======+
| We are interested in the     |       |       |       |       |       |
| type of management you think |       |       |       |       |       |
| is appropriate for this      |       |       |       |       |       |
| canyon. Please indicate the  |       |       |       |       |       |
| degree to which you support  |       |       |       |       |       |
| or oppose the following      |       |       |       |       |       |
| management actions for this  |       |       |       |       |       |
| canyon.                      |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                              | **    | **Opp | *     | **    | **    |
|                              | Stron | ose** | *Supp | Stron | Don't |
|                              | gly** |       | ort** | gly** | K     |
|                              |       |       |       |       | now** |
|                              | **Opp |       |       | *     |       |
|                              | ose** |       |       | *Supp |       |
|                              |       |       |       | ort** |       |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Restrict visitor use through | 9.1   | 14.5  | 37.6  | 37.6  | 1.2   |
| a permit system to ensure    |       |       |       |       |       |
| opportunities for solitude   |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Restrict visitor use through | 4.8   | 4.8   | 42.4  | 47.9  | 0.0   |
| a permit system to protect   |       |       |       |       |       |
| natural resources            |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Implement short-term area    | 13.4  | 21.3  | 34.1  | 28.7  | 2.4   |
| closures for the protection  |       |       |       |       |       |
| of sensitive resources       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Install artificial anchors   | 10.4  | 20.1  | 41.7  | 19.6  | 8.0   |
| to avoid creation of paths   |       |       |       |       |       |
| around the small obstacles   |       |       |       |       |       |
| to movement up & down the    |       |       |       |       |       |
| canyon                       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Data from *Research to       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Support Application of the   |       |       |       |       |       |
| VERP Framework at ZION*      |       |       |       |       |       |
| (2004) -- Canyoneering       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Mail-back Survey 2003.       |       |       |       |       |       |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

+-----------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| **Table 4: Visitor          |       |       |       |       |       |
| Acceptance of Management    |       |       |       |       |       |
| Options for the Narrows**   |       |       |       |       |       |
+=============================+=======+=======+=======+=======+=======+
| We are interested in the    |       |       |       |       |       |
| type of management you      |       |       |       |       |       |
| think is appropriate in the |       |       |       |       |       |
| Virgin River Narrows.       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Please indicate the degree  |       |       |       |       |       |
| to which you support or     |       |       |       |       |       |
| oppose the following        |       |       |       |       |       |
| management actions for this |       |       |       |       |       |
| area.                       |       |       |       |       |       |
+-----------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                             | **    | **Opp | *     | **    | **    |
|                             | Stron | ose** | *Supp | Stron | Don't |
|                             | gly** |       | ort** | gly** | K     |
|                             |       |       |       |       | now** |
|                             | **Opp |       |       | *     |       |
|                             | ose** |       |       | *Supp |       |
|                             |       |       |       | ort** |       |
+-----------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Restrict visitor use        | 9.6   | 17.8  | 35.6  | 34.2  | 2.7   |
| through a permit system to  |       |       |       |       |       |
| ensure opportunities for    |       |       |       |       |       |
| solitude                    |       |       |       |       |       |
+-----------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Restrict visitor use        | 4.0   | 12.0  | 34.7  | 45.3  | 4.0   |
| through a permit system to  |       |       |       |       |       |
| protect natural resources   |       |       |       |       |       |
+-----------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Implement short-term area   | 14.1  | 21.1  | 38.0  | 21.1  | 5.6   |
| closures for the protection |       |       |       |       |       |
| of sensitive resources      |       |       |       |       |       |
+-----------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| Data from *Research to      |       |       |       |       |       |
| Support Application of the  |       |       |       |       |       |
| VERP Framework at ZION*     |       |       |       |       |       |
| (2004) -- The Narrows       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Mail-back Survey 2003.      |       |       |       |       |       |
+-----------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

**Group Encounter Rates in the Pristine Zone**

The proposed group encounter rate for the Pristine Zone would be that 90
percent of groups would encounter no more than two other groups per day
while traveling through this zone.

This encounter rate is slightly higher than the interim encounter rate
of zero that was set by the GMP. The higher rate is based on the VERP
study which indicated that the majority of all surveyed groups of
backcountry users found an encounter rate greater than zero to be very
acceptable. The majority of those surveyed indicated that encountering
two other groups was very acceptable (a value of +3 or +4) (Tables 5 &
6).

**Group Encounter Rates in the Primitive Zone**

The proposed group encounter rate for the Primitive Zone would be that
90 percent of groups would encounter no more than 10 other groups per
day while traveling through this zone.

This encounter rate is slightly lower than the interim encounter rate of
12 that was set by the GMP. The lower rate is based on the VERP study
which indicated that the majority of all surveyed groups of backcountry
users found an encounter rate of 12 to be very unacceptable. The median
encounter rate at which point visitors stated that they would consider
not returning to ZION was 10 for two of the three user groups surveyed.
Likewise, the majority of users groups (two of the three) indicated that
encountering 10 other groups was not highly unacceptable (a value of -3
or -4). While encountering 12 other groups was highly unacceptable to
more than 50 percent of those surveyed. Based on the same values, the
third user group (canyoneering day trips) would prefer a slightly lower
encounter rate (Tables 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, & 10).

Interim use limits for canyoneering day trips in place since 2003 are 12
people per day in the Pristine Zone and 50 people per day in the
Primitive Zone. Based on encounter rate monitoring conducted by park
staff during the 2004 and 2005, this plan proposes to raise the use
limits to 20 people per day in the Pristine Zone and 80 people per day
in the Primitive Zone. Encounter monitoring would continue and the
numbers would be re-evaluated every 3-years. Use limits could be
adjusted based on resource protection or visitor experience. The
majority of those who commented on use limits during scoping indicated a
desire for use limits higher than the 2003 interim limits.

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table 5: Day                                                               
  Use with Permit                                                              
  in Canyons**                                                                 
  --------------- ------ ------ ----- ------ ------ ----- ------ ------ ------ -------
  We would like                                                                
  to know how                                                                  
  many groups you                                                              
  think could use                                                              
  the canyon for                                                               
  which you                                                                    
  obtained a                                                                   
  permit without                                                               
  it being too                                                                 
  crowded. How                                                                 
  many other                                                                   
  groups do you                                                                
  think it is                                                                  
  acceptable to                                                                
  see and/or hear                                                              
  in the canyon                                                                
  for which you                                                                
  received a                                                                   
  permit? Please                                                               
  rate the                                                                     
  acceptability                                                                
  of each of the                                                               
  following                                                                    
  numbers of                                                                   
  other groups                                                                 
  seen and/or                                                                  
  heard in this                                                                
  canyon. A                                                                    
  rating of "-4"                                                               
  means the                                                                    
  number of other                                                              
  groups                                                                       
  seen/heard is                                                                
  very                                                                         
  unacceptable,                                                                
  and a rating of                                                              
  "+4" means the                                                               
  number of other                                                              
  groups                                                                       
  seen/heard is                                                                
  very                                                                         
  acceptable.                                                                  

                  -4     -3     -2    -1     0      +1    +2     +3     +4     Mean

  No other groups 7.1    1.3    1.3   0.0    6.5    1.3   3.9    2.6    76.1   2.86

  Up to 2 other   4.5    0.6    0.0   0.6    7.0    3.8   9.6    25.5   48.4   2.73
  groups                                                                       

  Up to 4 other   7.2    2.6    3.9   4.6    11.7   5.9   22.2   12.4   29.4   1.56
  groups                                                                       

  Up to 6 other   17.5   4.5    7.1   10.4   11.8   9.7   12.3   7.8    18.8   0.25
  groups                                                                       

  Up to 8 other   31.1   7.9    9.9   7.9    14.6   7.3   6.6    3.3    11.3   -1.01
  groups                                                                       

  Up to 10 other  46.7   10.7   7.3   8.0    8.7    4.0   3.3    2.0    9.3    -1.87
  groups                                                                       

  Up to 12 other  57.0   10.6   6.6   6.0    5.3    6.0   1.3    1.3    6.0    -2.42
  groups                                                                       

  Up to 14 other  68.4   7.2    7.2   1.3    6.6    1.3   0.7    1.3    5.9    -2.81
  groups                                                                       

  Up to 16 other  77.0   3.3    3.3   3.3    5.3    0.7   0.7    0.7    5.9    -3.00
  groups                                                                       

  Data from                                                                    
  *Research to                                                                 
  Support                                                                      
  Application of                                                               
  the VERP                                                                     
  Framework at                                                                 
  ZION* (2004) --                                                              
  Canyoneering                                                                 
  Mail-back                                                                    
  Survey 2003.                                                                 
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table 6: Day Use with                         
  Permit in Canyons --                            
  Summary**                                       
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
                          **Mean**                **Median**

  Acceptability           6.4                     

  Preference              3.6                     2.0

  Displacement            8.6                     8.0

  Management Action       9.5                     8.0

  Typically Seen/Heard    2.8                     2.0

  Data from *Research to                          
  Support Application of                          
  the VERP Framework at                           
  ZION* (2004) --                                 
  Canyoneering Mail-back                          
  Survey 2003.                                    
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table 7: Day                                                                 
  Use with Permit                                                                
  in Narrows**                                                                   
  --------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -------
  We would like                                                                  
  to know how                                                                    
  many other                                                                     
  groups you                                                                     
  think it is                                                                    
  acceptable to                                                                  
  see on this                                                                    
  hike (between                                                                  
  the head of the                                                                
  Virgin River                                                                   
  Narrows and                                                                    
  Orderville                                                                     
  Canyon) without                                                                
  this area being                                                                
  too crowded.                                                                   
  Please rate the                                                                
  acceptability                                                                  
  of each of the                                                                 
  following                                                                      
  numbers of                                                                     
  other groups                                                                   
  seen in this                                                                   
  area. A rating                                                                 
  of "-4" means                                                                  
  the number of                                                                  
  other groups                                                                   
  seen is very                                                                   
  unacceptable,                                                                  
  and a rating of                                                                
  "+4" means the                                                                 
  number of other                                                                
  groups seen is                                                                 
  very                                                                           
  acceptable.                                                                    

                  -4     -3     -2     -1     0      +1     +2     +3     +4     Mean

  No other groups 5.6    0.0    1.4    4.2    2.8    4.2    1.4    4.2    76.4   2.96

  Up to 2 other   1.4    1.4    1.4    2.8    2.8    6.9    6.9    22.2   54.2   2.89
  groups                                                                         

  Up to 4 other   0.0    0.0    4.1    5.4    10.8   6.8    25.7   21.6   25.7   2.12
  groups                                                                         

  Up to 6 other   5.6    4.2    6.9    5.6    13.9   19.4   18.1   12.5   13.9   0.94
  groups                                                                         

  Up to 8 other   14.3   7.1    12.9   11.4   18.6   12.9   7.1    7.1    8.6    -0.33
  groups                                                                         

  Up to 10 other  22.9   17.1   10.0   17.1   15.7   5.7    2.9    5.7    2.9    -1.40
  groups                                                                         

  Up to 12 other  35.7   17.1   17.1   8.6    7.1    4.3    1.4    4.3    4.3    -2.00
  groups                                                                         

  Up to 14 other  53.5   19.7   7.0    4.2    2.8    4.2    0.0    4.2    4.2    -2.58
  groups                                                                         

  Up to 16 other  71.0   4.3    7.2    4.3    1.4    2.9    2.9    1.4    4.3    -2.86
  groups                                                                         

  Data from                                                                      
  *Research to                                                                   
  Support                                                                        
  Application of                                                                 
  the VERP                                                                       
  Framework at                                                                   
  ZION* (2004) --                                                                
  The Narrows                                                                    
  Mail-back                                                                      
  Survey 2003.                                                                   
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table 8: Day Use with                         
  Permit in Narrows --                            
  Summary**                                       
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
                          **Mean**                **Median**

  Acceptability           7.5                     

  Preference              4.0                     3.0

  Displacement            10.5                    10.0

  Management Action       14.0                    10.0

  Typically Seen          6.0                     4.0

  Data from *Research to                          
  Support Application of                          
  the VERP Framework at                           
  ZION* (2004) -- The                             
  Narrows Mail-back                               
  Survey 2003.                                    
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table 9:                                                                     
  Overnight                                                                      
  Backpacker                                                                     
  Use**                                                                          
  --------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
  We would like                                                                  
  to know how                                                                    
  many other                                                                     
  groups of                                                                      
  hikers per day                                                                 
  you think it is                                                                
  acceptable to                                                                  
  see without                                                                    
  backcountry                                                                    
  trails being                                                                   
  too crowded.                                                                   
  Please rate the                                                                
  acceptability                                                                  
  of each of the                                                                 
  following                                                                      
  numbers of                                                                     
  other groups                                                                   
  seen per day                                                                   
  along                                                                          
  backcountry                                                                    
  trails. A                                                                      
  rating of "-4"                                                                 
  means the                                                                      
  number of other                                                                
  groups seen is                                                                 
  very                                                                           
  unacceptable,                                                                  
  and a rating of                                                                
  "+4" means the                                                                 
  number of other                                                                
  groups seen is                                                                 
  very                                                                           
  acceptable.                                                                    

                  -4     -3     -2     -1     0      +1     +2     +3     +4     Mean

  No other groups 2.2    0.0    0.0    1.1    3.3    2.2    5.5    0.0    80.2   3.4

  Up to 2 other   1.1    1.1    0.0    0.0    2.2    2.2    6.6    24.2   57.1   3.3
  groups                                                                         

  Up to 4 other   0.0    2.2    1.1    2.2    6.6    15.4   14.3   31.9   22.0   2.3
  groups                                                                         

  Up to 6 other   2.2    3.3    4.4    8.8    16.5   24.2   9.9    14.3   11.0   1.0
  groups                                                                         

  Up to 8 other   12.1   5.5    14.3   13.2   14.3   11.0   11.0   6.6    6.6    -0.3
  groups                                                                         

  Up to 10 other  28.2   12.9   10.6   16.5   14.1   2.4    5.9    5.9    3.5    -1.4
  groups                                                                         

  Up to 12 other  35.2   12.1   17.6   7.7    4.4    7.7    5.5    1.1    2.2    -2.0
  groups                                                                         

  Up to 14 other  51.2   18.6   9.3    5.8    4.7    5.8    2.3    1.2    1.2    -2.7
  groups                                                                         

  Up to 16 other  65.1   9.3    9.3    4.7    4.7    3.5    1.2    2.3    0.0    -3.0
  groups                                                                         

  Data from                                                                      
  *Research to                                                                   
  Support                                                                        
  Application of                                                                 
  the VERP                                                                       
  Framework at                                                                   
  ZION* (2004) --                                                                
  Overnight                                                                      
  Mail-back                                                                      
  Survey 2003.                                                                   
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table 10: Overnight                           
  Backpacker Use --                               
  Summary**                                       
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
                          **Mean**                **Median**

  Acceptability           7.5                     

  Preference              2.3                     2.0

  Displacement            11.1                    10.0

  Management Action       9.9                     10.0

  Typically Seen          3.3                     2.0

  Data from *Research to                          
  Support Application of                          
  the VERP Framework at                           
  ZION* (2004) --                                 
  Overnight Mail-back                             
  Survey 2003.                                    
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Group Size in the Pristine Zone**

The proposed group size limit in the Pristine Zone differs by area.
Within slot canyons the proposed group size limit would be 6. Elsewhere
in the zone the proposed group size limit would be 12. One reason for
different group size limits is because visitors hiking through slot
canyons are far more likely to encounter other groups. Visitor use would
continue to be monitored. If 10 percent of visitor hiking through the
Pristine Zone (outside of canyons) encounter groups larger than 6, the
group size limit throughout the zone would be reduced to 6 (Table 11).

Changes in group size limit are consistent with comments received during
the EA scoping period where the majority of those who commented
indicated that the existing group size limit of 12 was appropriate.
Forty-four percent indicated that existing limits are too high and 4
percent indicated that existing limits were too low. The majority of
visitors surveyed (through the VERP surveys) found a group size of 6 to
be very acceptable (a value of +3 or +4). While the same group found a
group size of 8 to be unacceptable.

**Group Size in the Primitive Zone**

The proposed group size for the Primitive Zone would remain at 12. The
majority of visitors surveyed did not find a group size limit of 12 to
be unacceptable (value of -3 or -4). In both user groups, the majority
of users did find that a group size limit of 14 to be very unacceptable
(Tables 11 & 12).

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table 11:                                                                                  
  Canyoneering                                                                                 
  Day Use --                                                                                   
  Group Size                                                                                   
  Preference**                                                                                 
  -------------- ----- ---------------- ----- ------ ----- ------ -------------- ------ ------ ------
                       **Very                                     **Very                       
                       Unacceptable**                             Acceptable**                 

                       -4               -3    -2     -1    0      +1             +2     +3     +4

                 N     Percent                                                                 

  Four           194   20.6             1.0   0.0    0.5   3.1    1.0            3.6    6.2    63.9

  Six            195   14.4             3.1   2.1    1.5   8.2    5.1            5.1    13.3   47.2

  Eight          195   14.9             4.6   4.6    7.2   10.8   10.3           11.3   9.2    27.2

  Ten            193   22.3             8.3   8.8    7.3   13.5   6.2            10.4   7.8    15.5

  Twelve         194   33.5             5.2   11.3   4.6   13.9   4.6            6.2    4.1    16.5

  Fourteen       193   49.2             8.8   10.4   4.7   6.7    4.7            3.6    3.6    8.3

  Sixteen        194   63.4             4.6   4.6    4.6   5.7    4.6            3.1    2.1    7.2

  Data from                                                                                    
  *Research to                                                                                 
  Support                                                                                      
  Application of                                                                               
  the VERP                                                                                     
  Framework at                                                                                 
  ZION* (2004)                                                                                 
  -- Day Use                                                                                   
  with Permit                                                                                  
  Backcountry                                                                                  
  Mail-back                                                                                    
  Survey 2002.                                                                                 
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table 12:                                                                                    
  Overnight                                                                                      
  Backpacker Use                                                                                 
  -- Group Size                                                                                  
  Preference**                                                                                   
  -------------- ----- ---------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ -------------- ------ ------ ------
                       **Very                                       **Very                       
                       Unacceptable**                               Acceptable**                 

                 N     -4               -3     -2     -1     0      +1             +2     +3     +4

  Four           126   5.6              0.8    0.0    0.8    1.6    0.8            4.8    4.8    81.0

  Six            127   3.9              1.6    0.8    0.8    11.0   8.7            13.4   14.2   45.7

  Eight          126   12.7             2.4    4.0    7.1    18.3   18.3           8.7    11.9   16.7

  Ten            126   26.2             4.8    9.5    10.3   20.6   8.7            7.1    5.6    7.1

  Twelve         125   38.4             7.2    16.8   8.8    12.8   3.2            2.4    4.0    6.4

  Fourteen       126   63.5             11.9   7.1    7.1    4.0    0.8            2.4    0.0    3.2

  Sixteen        125   72.8             6.4    8.8    3.2    2.4    2.4            1.6    0.0    2.4

  Data from                                                                                      
  *Research to                                                                                   
  Support                                                                                        
  Application of                                                                                 
  the VERP                                                                                       
  Framework at                                                                                   
  ZION* (2004)                                                                                   
  -- Overnight                                                                                   
  Backcountry                                                                                    
  Mail-back                                                                                      
  Survey 2002.                                                                                   
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**Per Day/Night Use Limits**

Social and resource indicators and standards would both be considered
when determining use limits. Use limits would be re-evaluated on a
yearly basis for resource concerns and every 3-years for social
concerns. Based on the current evaluation of standards, Table 13
indicates use limits that are proposed for implementation in 2008 for
commonly visited areas in the backcountry. These values are examples of
what would be used for all backcountry areas. Use limits may be adjusted
seasonally in areas where Mexican spotted owls occur.

+-------------+-----------+--------------------------------------------+
| **Table 13: |           |                                            |
| Proposed    |           |                                            |
| Use         |           |                                            |
| Limits**    |           |                                            |
+=============+===========+============================================+
| **Area**    | **Use     | **Limiting Factor**                        |
|             | Limit**   |                                            |
+-------------+-----------+--------------------------------------------+
| Zion        | 12        | Social/Primitive Zone                      |
| Narrows     | gro       |                                            |
|             | ups/night |                                            |
|             |           |                                            |
|             | 40 day    |                                            |
|             | users/day |                                            |
+-------------+-----------+--------------------------------------------+
| LaVerkin    | 17        | Social/Primitive Zone. Day use is          |
| Creek       | gro       | currently not limited. Combination of day  |
|             | ups/night | & overnight use currently exceeds standard |
|             |           | & would be adjusted                        |
+-------------+-----------+--------------------------------------------+
| West Rim    | 9         | Social/Primitive Zone. Day use is          |
|             | gro       | currently not limited. Combination of day  |
|             | ups/night | & overnight use currently falls within     |
|             |           | standards.                                 |
+-------------+-----------+--------------------------------------------+
| Subway      | 80        | Social/Primitive Zone                      |
| (Left Fork) | p         |                                            |
|             | eople/day |                                            |
+-------------+-----------+--------------------------------------------+
| Pine Creek  | 50        | Mexican spotted owls/Primitive Zone^1^     |
| Canyon      | p         |                                            |
|             | eople/day |                                            |
+-------------+-----------+--------------------------------------------+
| Keyhole     | 80        | Social/Primitive Zone                      |
| Canyon      | p         |                                            |
|             | eople/day |                                            |
+-------------+-----------+--------------------------------------------+
| Orderville  | 50        | Mexican spotted owls/Primitive Zone^1^     |
| Canyon      | p         |                                            |
|             | eople/day |                                            |
+-------------+-----------+--------------------------------------------+
| Mystery     | 12        | Eroded access trail/Pristine Zone          |
| Canyon      | p         |                                            |
|             | eople/day |                                            |
+-------------+-----------+--------------------------------------------+
| Spry Canyon | 12        | Eroded access trail/Pristine Zone          |
|             | p         |                                            |
|             | eople/day |                                            |
+-------------+-----------+--------------------------------------------+
| Behunin     | 12        | Mexican spotted owls/Pristine Zone^1^      |
| Canyon      | p         |                                            |
|             | eople/day |                                            |
+-------------+-----------+--------------------------------------------+
| Echo Canyon | 12        | Mexican spotted owls/Pristine Zone^1^      |
|             | p         |                                            |
|             | eople/day |                                            |
+-------------+-----------+--------------------------------------------+
| Englestead  | 20        | Social/Pristine Zone                       |
| Canyon      | p         |                                            |
|             | eople/day |                                            |
+-------------+-----------+--------------------------------------------+
| ^1^If areas |           |                                            |
| where       |           |                                            |
| Mexican     |           |                                            |
| spotted     |           |                                            |
| owls are a  |           |                                            |
| limiting    |           |                                            |
| factor, use |           |                                            |
| limits      |           |                                            |
| could be    |           |                                            |
| raised      |           |                                            |
| outside the |           |                                            |
| nesting     |           |                                            |
| season.     |           |                                            |
+-------------+-----------+--------------------------------------------+

**Bottlenecks**

When traveling through slot canyons visitors may encounter obstacles
that usually require some technical ability in order to navigate. These
obstacles could be a waterfall, dry pour-off, large rock, or pool.
Navigating these obstacles takes time, causing groups to bunch up and
experience more encounters than in other parts of the trip. In order to
improve visitor experience and safety the park proposes the following
standards:

-   Pristine Zone -- 90 percent of groups would not have to wait more
    than 15 minutes at an obstacle more than one time per day.

-   Primitive Zone -- 90 percent of groups would not have to wait more
    than 15 minute at an obstacle more than three times per day.

If the standards are exceeded, actions would include education, reducing
the group size, or reducing the encounter rates. Monitoring would occur
during backcountry patrols and projects. Data would be reviewed every
3-years.

**Visitor Safety in the Backcountry**

Travel in ZION's backcountry has inherent risks and visitors assume
complete responsibility for their own safety. Although it is the park's
responsibility to ensure that visitors have the information available to
make their visit to the park's backcountry as safe as practical. Visitor
education is the primary means through which the park would continue to
encourage safe backcountry travel.

When conditions or areas are deemed by park staff to be clearly unsafe
for average visitors, the area would be closed. Examples include the
Narrows during spring runoff or other areas during active flood events
or during wildland fire occurrences.

Outreach education opportunities to promote backcountry safety and
resource protection would continue. The park's website, the backcountry
trip planner, displays at the backcountry desk, and signing at
trailheads also provide opportunities to educate visitors on backcountry
safety.

The backcountry desk and the backcountry permitting process allow
contact with visitors prior to their adventures. Experienced backcountry
desk employees assist visitors in making wise trip decisions based on
their abilities, skill levels, their equipment, and environmental
conditions. The contact during the permitting process is particularly
important for visitors entering flood hazard areas.

Employees patrol backcountry trails and routes and discuss safety
protocols with backcountry visitors. As valuable as these patrols are,
they are not sufficiently frequent to be considered a primary source of
backcountry safety information.

Communicating flash flood safety to visitors is very important to the
park. The National Weather Service (NWS) provides information that
enables visitors to estimate the risk of flooding on a particular day
(e.g., weather forecast, flash flood potential, flash flood watch, flash
flood warning), but flash floods can occur at any time including periods
of low risk. When the NWS issues a flash flood warning indicating that a
flash flood is occurring or imminent, permits would not be issued for
any narrow canyon in the park. The park would continue to assist
visitors in making educated choices concerning flash flood risk.

**Wilderness Use by Persons with Disabilities**

In General -- Congress reaffirms that nothing in the Wilderness Act is
to be construed as prohibiting the use of a wheelchair in a wilderness
area by an individual whose disability requires use of a wheelchair, and
consistent with the Wilderness Act, no agency is required to provide any
form of special treatment or accommodation, or to construct any
facilities or modify any conditions of lands within a wilderness area to
facilitate such use.

Definition -- For the purposes paragraph (1), the term wheelchair means
a device designed solely for the use by a mobility-impaired person for
locomotion that is suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area
\[Section 507(c), 104 Stat. 327, 42 USC 12207 -- Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)\].

In meeting the goal of accessibility, emphasis would be placed on
ensuring that persons with disabilities are afforded experiences and
opportunities along with other visitors to the greatest extent
reasonable (NPS *Management Policies 2006*, 9.1.2).

Wheelchairs -- Wheelchairs are appropriate in wilderness only if they
meet the definition of the ADA. The intent of this definition is that a
wheelchair is a person's primary mode of locomotion, manual or electric,
that is suitable for indoor pedestrian areas. This definition does not
include wheelchairs that function like an all terrain vehicle. This
definition is also intended to ensure persons using wheelchairs are
reasonably accommodated in wilderness without the need to compromise
either the wilderness resource or its character.

Service Animals -- The NPS would allow service animals within wilderness
when it makes these areas accessible and usable by persons with
disabilities. The ADA defines service animals as any guide dog, signal
dog, or other animal individually trained to provide assistance to a
person with a disability. Trained service animals are permitted within
wilderness when they are required for day-to-day activities by persons
with disabilities.

**Public Use of Motorized Equipment and Mechanized Transport**

The Wilderness Act prohibits the use of motor vehicles, motorized
equipment, motorboats, and other forms or mechanical transport, except
as necessary to meet the minimum requirements for administering an area
as wilderness. The use of snowmobiles is prohibited in the backcountry
areas of the park.

As a general rule, public use of any form of mechanical transport,
including bicycles, wheelbarrows, and person or horse drawn carts is
prohibited, with the exception of manual or motorized wheelchairs (as
defined by the ADA and Title 36, CFR) used by disabled visitors.

**Day Use**

Appropriate day use activities in the park's backcountry include hiking,
canyoneering, climbing, sightseeing, wildlife viewing, cross country
skiing, snowshoeing, etc. Day use would be monitored through VERP
indicators and standards (Table14 & 15). If standards are exceeded,
actions may need to be taken to reduce encounters or to protect
resources.

Data from monitoring (2003 through 2006) indicate that three areas may
already be out of standard including LaVerkin Creek, the Middle Fork of
Taylor Creek, and the Narrows between Orderville Canyon and Big Spring.
Actions may need to be taken in the near future to reduce use in these
areas.

**Pets**

Dogs, cats, and other pets are not allowed in the backcountry. Pets can
disturb wildlife and visitors. In addition wildlife can potentially
cause harm to pets and pet owners.

The use of search dogs may be authorized during emergencies such as
search and rescue or law enforcement operations. Guidelines for service
animals are found above in the section titled *Wilderness Use by Persons
with Disabilities*.

**Campfires**

Campfires are not allowed in any backcountry area within the park.

**Commemorations/Memorialization**

Historic burial plots and commemorative features, such as plaques or
memorials that have been previously approved may be retained. No
additions may be made. The scattering of human ashes from cremation
within the backcountry may be allowed on a case-by-case basis and would
require a special use permit issued by the Superintendent and would
contain specific terms and conditions to ensure that wilderness
conditions and the visitor's wilderness experience are not adversely
impacted (as outlines in 36 CFR 2.62).

**Commercial Services**

Commercial services include activities such as guide services for
hiking, outfitted horseback use, mountain climbing, canyoneering and
other similar activities. The 2001 GMP states: *currently, guided hiking
and climbing activities in the park are not permitted*. The GMP goes on
to state that the park should complete a backcountry management plan
that analyzes: *...whether or not commercial guiding should be allowed
in recommended wilderness and if so how should it be managed.*

Through this planning process, the park has determined that commercial
services (guiding) would not be allowed within the Primitive and
Pristine Zones.

Commercial services (guiding) would be allowed within the Transition
Zone including those areas within recommended wilderness: Observation
Point Trail, the Narrows below the Orderville Canyon, and the Timber
Creek Overlook Trail.

This decision was based on several factors including The Wilderness Act,
NPS *Management Policies 2006*, and scoping comments.

Section 4 (c) of The Wilderness Act states: *Except as specifically
provided for in this chapter, and subject to existing private rights,
there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any
wilderness area designated by this chapter and, except as necessary to
meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the
purpose of this chapter (including measures required in emergencies
involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall
be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or
motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical
transport, and no structure or installation within any such area*.

The Act goes on to state in Section 4 (d) (6): *Commercial services may
be performed within the wilderness areas designated by this chapter to
the extent necessary for activities which are proper for realizing the
recreational or other wilderness purposes of the areas*.

NPS *Management Policies 2006* Section 6.4.4 states: *Wilderness
oriented commercial services that contribute to public education and
visitor enjoyment of wilderness or provide opportunities for primitive
and unconfined types of recreation may be authorized if they meet the
"necessary and appropriate" tests of the NPS Concessions Management
Improvement Act of 1998 and section 4 (d)(6) of the Wilderness Act...*

During the scoping process, visitors were asked if commercial guiding
should be allowed in the Primitive Zone. A strong majority of
respondents indicated that they did not want guiding to occur along the
routes and trails within this zone. In general, visitors have not
expressed a demand for guided services in the park.

Refer to Appendix G for the process used to determine necessary and
appropriate uses as they relate to backcountry commercial uses.

**Native American Access**

Native Americans would be permitted access within the backcountry for
sacred or religious purposes consistent with the regulations and intent
of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, EO 13007 of May 24, 1996
on *Indian Sacred Sites*, the Wilderness Act, related laws, policies,
and according to criteria for special park uses.

**Hunting/Fishing**

Hunting is not allowed in the park. Fishing is allowed with a valid
state license. Fishing is not a very popular activity in ZION because
most streams and ponds support few trout or other game fish due to their
frequent flooding and periods of high turbity.

**Administrative Conditions and Management Activities**

**Minimum Requirement Concept**

The Wilderness Act of 1964 states in section 4(c) that: *\...except as
necessary to meet the minimum requirement for the administration of the
area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in
emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area)
there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized
equipment or motorboats, no landing aircraft, no other form of
mechanical transport, and no structure or installation...* within a
Wilderness area. The Act allows for the administrative exception, but it
is an exception not to be abused and to be exercised very sparingly and
only when it meets the test of being the minimum necessary for
wilderness management. NPS policy dictates that all management decisions
affecting wilderness must be consistent with the Minimum Requirement
Concept.

In wilderness, how a management action is carried out is as important as
the end product. When determining minimum requirement, the potential
disruption of wilderness resources and character would be considered
before, and given more weight than, economic efficiency and convenience.
If a compromise of wilderness resources or character is unavoidable,
only those actions that preserve wilderness character in the long run
and/or have localized, short-term adverse impacts would be accepted.

To apply the Minimum Requirement Concept, a Minimum Requirement Analysis
would be completed for any management action proposed within recommended
wilderness, including but not limited to natural and cultural resource
projects, administrative facilities, trail and camp area projects and
research. Completion of the Minimum Requirement Analysis Worksheets is
usually part of the environmental screening process and accompanies an
Environmental Screening Form.

The Minimum Requirement Analysis is a two-part process. Part A helps
determine whether or not the proposed management action is appropriate
or necessary for administration of the area as wilderness, and does not
pose a significant impact to wilderness resources and character. Part B
describes alternatives for the proposed action and evaluates each to
determine if the techniques and tools and equipment (minimum tool)
needed to ensure that overall impacts to wilderness resources and
character are minimized. The Minimum Requirement Analysis Worksheet and
instructions for its completion can be found in Appendix B.

**Aircraft Use**

Aircraft not under the direction of the NPS are not permitted to land in
the park. All aircraft landings require prior approval unless justified
by an in-flight emergency. Landings should occur at sites identified in
an Aviation Management Plan or approved by the Incident Commander during
an emergency operation. Permanent cleared or constructed aircraft
landing sites (e.g., heliports, helipads, airstrips) are not permitted
in the recommended wilderness. Permanent site improvements or markings
of any kind are not permitted. Temporary sites (helispots) are to be
located in natural openings on stable, durable surfaces such as dry
meadows, rock, etc. Temporary improvements may only be authorized during
emergency operations, when serious risk to human health and safety would
result (search and rescue operations) or substantial resource damage is
imminent (wildland fire suppression), if no reasonable alternative
exists. Restoration to as near original condition as possible is
required following the emergency.

**Emergency Services**

During emergency incidents, consideration would be given to protecting
the park's backcountry, and natural and cultural resources. While hazard
mitigation may be required, under no circumstances would pure
convenience dictate the destruction of any park resources. Leave No
Trace (Appendix A) minimum impact techniques would be incorporated into
incident action plans and used whenever possible to lessen impacts to
recommended wilderness resources during emergency operations.

NPS *Management Policies 2006* provide for the administrative use of
motorized equipment or mechanical transport ...*in emergency situations
involving human health and safety*. For the purposes of this plan/EA,
emergency situations include:

-   response to those in need of medical or physical assistance when
    threats to human health and safety are reasonably assumed,

-   response to those who are determined to be unjustifiably overdue and
    threats to human health and safety are reasonably assumed,

-   any response to downed aircraft,

-   any response to an unknown emergency (e.g., mirror flash,
    second-hand visitor report, radio distress signal),

-   any reported disaster,

-   special law enforcement operations when threats to human health and
    safety are reasonably assumed, and

-   response to wildland fires which threaten life, property, cultural
    or natural resources.

**Backcountry Permit and Reservation System**

ZION's backcountry permit system allows the park to maintain levels of
backcountry use consistent with a high quality visitor experience,
safety, and resource protection by:

-   regulating use through a quota system,

-   providing education concerning resource protection and other Leave
    No Trace (Appendix A) techniques,

-   providing education concerning safety issues,

-   providing a means to track visitor use, and

-   identifying a starting point for search and rescue efforts.

Backcountry permits have been required for all overnight trips in ZION's
backcountry as well as for day trips through the length of the Narrows
and it's tributaries for over 26 years (prior to 1980). A group size
limit of 12 was put into place in 1992. In the 1990s, designated
campsites, and a limitation on the number of overnight groups, were
established in the Narrows, LaVerkin Creek, and the West Rim Trail. A
use limitation of 50 people per day was instituted for the Left Fork of
North Creek (Subway) in 1997, and permits were required for all
technical canyons in 1998.

Prior to 1997, backcountry permits were issued by interpretive rangers
at the Visitor Center. In 1997, a dedicated backcountry permit staff was
established and funded through the fee demonstration program.

In 1998, a telephone permit reservation system was created for the
Subway. The desire for permits soon outgrew the telephone reservations
system. In 2002, the park initiated an e-mail based lottery system for
the Subway.

In 2004, ZION became the first NPS unit to allow visitors to obtain both
backcountry reservations and permits via the internet. Reservations for
permits can be made in two ways. Reservations for the most difficult to
obtain permits (in 2007, the Subway and Mystery Canyon) are available
through a lottery. The remaining reservations for these areas as well as
reservations for many other areas are available via a calendar
reservation system. Frequent visitors can obtain their permits via the
internet with no need to visit ZION's backcountry desk.

Despite the on-line permit and reservation system, visitors continue to
encounter long lines at the backcountry permit desk. This is a common
complaint of frequent canyoneers and other backcountry users. On
weekends, it is common for visitors who have arrived prior to the
backcountry desk's 7 am opening to not receive their permit until after
8 am. In addition to delaying the start of a visitor's trip, the long
lines prevent backcountry staff from spending quality time with
inexperienced backcountry users discussing critical Leave No Trace and
safety information.

The on-line system has been well received, but the system is currently
lightly used. The park continues to look for ways to encourage
experienced visitors to obtain permits by means other than the
backcountry desk. This would make it easier for visitors to obtain
permits and allow park staff to spend more time with less experienced
backcountry visitors.

Prior to 1997, visitors were not charged for backcountry permits. In
1997 a newly created, dedicated backcountry permit staff was funded by a
cost recovery project through the fee demonstration program. Visitors
were charged \$5 per visitor per day/night (i.e., two people spending
two nights in the backcountry were charged \$20 for a permit). In 2000,
the fee was reduced to \$5 per permit. Fees were raised to the current
rate of \$10 to \$20 per permit in 2004, based on group size, which
covers all of the costs associated with issuing permits as well as some
of the costs associated with monitoring the condition of backcountry
resources, backcountry rehabilitation, and backcountry patrol.

**Designated Campsites**

Campsites are designated to prevent resource damage and to improve
visitor experience by focusing camping impacts on a few resilient sites.
In ZION campsites are designated in the Narrows (12 sites for 72
people), LaVerkin Creek (17 sites for 90 people), Hop Valley (3 sites
for 26 people -- includes 1 site for horse use), West Rim Trail (9 sites
for 56 people), and the newly designated Coalpits/Chinle area (6 sites
for up to 72 people) (Map F).

Some of these designated sites are located in flood hazard areas where
no suitable alternative locations exist. The risks associated with
requiring camping in flood hazard areas and actions to mitigate these
risks are identified in the Floodplains Statement of Finding in Appendix
F.

Campsites could be designated in other areas of the park if certain
resource or social conditions occur (Refer to *Campsite Designation
Criteria* below). Designated campsites would be monitored to ensure that
the VERP indicators stay within the standards identified in Tables 14
and 15. Monitoring methods are outlined in the *Campsite Monitoring
Manual* version 11/1/02 developed by Dr. Jeff Marion and on file in the
park Backcountry Office.

**Campsite Designation Criteria**

In the future campsites could be designated in the Primitive Zone
because a resource or social standard (Tables 14 & 15) has been
exceeded. Sites would be chosen based on the following:

-   Resource protection would be of primary importance.

-   Campsites would be selected to avoid flood hazard areas where
    practical.

-   Campsites would be placed out of view of the trail.

-   Campsites would be placed far enough apart so that you can not hear
    other campers from your site.

-   Sites would be sized to accommodate either 6 or 12 people.

-   Campsites would be placed in areas with slopes, buried rocks, or
    other features that limit the unintended expansion of sites.

-   Campsite placement would be subject to cultural resource mitigation
    outlined in *Mitigation Measures for Alternative B* of this
    document.

**Non-Designated Camp Areas**

The majority of the park is open to at-large camping meaning visitors
can camp anywhere they choose with the following exceptions where
camping would be prohibited:

-   within 1-mile of any road,

-   within ¼-mile of a spring,

-   within ¼-mile of the park boundary,

-   within site of trails,

-   under rock overhangs, or

-   on private inholdings.

At-large camping would be monitored according to VERP standards outlined
in Table 14. If permanent obvious campsites are found, measures would be
taken as outlined in Table 14. A permanent obvious campsite is defined
as an area where the campsite is obvious. Meaning the vegetation cover
has been lost and/or organic litter pulverized in the primary use area.
A site is not considered a campsite if the area is barely
distinguishable as such with a slight loss of vegetation cover and/or
minimal disturbance of organic litter.

As stated in the 2001 GMP and reaffirmed in this plan/EA, the Pristine
Zone would remain open to at-large camping. The Pristine Zone would be
monitored and management options implemented if standards are exceeded
as identified in Table 14.

**Climbing and Canyoneering Management**

Erosion off the rock -- Climbers and canyoneers often bushwhack and
scramble to gain access to the base of the cliff or into/out of a slot
canyon. Numerous approach trails have resulted in some areas. These
access trails typically are braided with other trails to the same area.
Because they travel either straight up or down grade, water flows down
the trails, causing soil loss, trenching and vegetation loss. Also, at
the base of some climbs in high use areas, the ground is compacted and
denuded of vegetation. Social trails often contour along the base of the
rock formation to the start of other climbs.

To remedy these problems access trails to the base of well-known and
heavily used climbing routes and slot canyons would be identified and
delineated in order to prevent further erosion and loss of vegetation.
In some instances signs may be placed to direct climbers away from
problem or sensitive areas in order to protect resources. No more than
one access route up/down a slope to the base of a climb, area, or canyon
would be allowed.

Educational efforts could also be used to encourage visitors to use
non-erosional surfaces or to follow one identified access route. Within
the Pristine Zone, any efforts to control erosion should be disguised
such that it is not apparent that they are human built.

Social trails that have developed over time, but currently see
infrequent use, would be rehabilitated to discourage further travel.
Travel in high use areas would be on established access routes.

Erosion on the rock -- Through continuous use the rock surface becomes
smoother and freer of lichens, moss and dirt. Ledges and cracks also
lose dirt and vegetation from climbing use. Toe and finger holds become
worn off or are not a useful location for some climbers. To make a
climbing route more accommodating a few climbers alter routes by gluing
an artificial hold or they may chip or pry the rock to create improved
holds. The gluing and chipping of holds would be prohibited. Aggressive,
intentional cleaning the rock or soil and vegetation would be
prohibited.

Specific climbing routes would be closed (seasonal or permanent) to
address a specific resource concern. Examples include nesting species,
hanging gardens, or archeological sites. Closures would be kept to the
minimum area and duration necessary to protect the affected resource.

Visual impacts associated with climbing vary depending on the viewer's
attitude towards climbing in general and their proximity to the
activity. Bright colored slings, shiny metal bolts, white chalk and the
sight of climbers and ropes on an otherwise undisturbed formation can be
viewed as intrusive.

Climbers would be encouraged to use rock climbing protection, slings,
and other equipment that blend with the natural surroundings. If anchors
detract from the aesthetics of the cliff faces of ZION and thus general
visitor's experience, additional management actions would be taken. The
use of chalk would be allowed, however climbers would be encouraged to
be sensitive to this issue. It is also the responsibility of climbers to
ensure that their ropes are not left on walls for long periods of time.
If problems persist, management actions could include requiring the use
of natural colored anchor material, closing area, and/or the creation of
a climbing management plan.

Bivouacs are allowed on the wall of climbs only. Overnight camping at
the base of the cliff is prohibited.\
\
Climbers must tube or bag human waste and toilet paper and carry it out.
Waste must be deposited in an RV dump station. The presence of human
waste at the base of climbs would be monitored using the same standard
as designated campsites (90 percent of climbs would have no more than
two visible piles of human waste near the base of a climb). If a
climbing area is found to be out of standard, actions that could be
taken include education, requiring the use of a portable toilet system,
or closing areas.

Bolts should be considered the tool of last resort by visitors who are
creating anchors. As mentioned above climbers, canyoneers, and others
creating anchors would be encouraged to use natural colored anchor
material (slings and hangers). The park would continue to monitor
bolting in the backcountry.

**Trails Management**

ZION has over 90 miles of designated trails and over 90 miles of
non-designated popular routes (Map E). In 1987 ZION compiled a *Trail
Standards Guide* that provided a standard of maintenance for park
trails, an inventory of park trails, and outlined the park's trail
maintenance program. Although this plan is out of date, some of the
information is still useful. The park currently does not have funding
for a trail maintenance crew, nor does the park have a schedule for
maintaining backcountry trails. So generally, little or no backcountry
trail maintenance is done, and when it does occur it is only where
safety concerns or resource damage becomes severe.

The routes into and out of slot canyons are not constructed: they have
been made by hikers going into and out of these canyons. Because of
continued use many of these routes are eroding affecting native
vegetation, soils and potentially visitor safety. In many of these areas
it is not practical or even possible to construct a trail. The park
would continue to monitor routes as outlined in Table 14 and would apply
the identified management actions if standards are exceeded. The park
would also continue to partner with user groups to find solutions to
this problem.

As part of the VERP studies some trails were surveyed and a monitoring
protocol was established. The *Trail Monitoring Manual (version 4/03)*
(on file in the park Backcountry Office) developed by Dr. Jeff Marion
would be used to monitor the trail and route resource indicators and
standards outline in Table 14.

**Historic Trails**

Two trail complexes, the West Rim and East Rim, are on the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Other backcountry trails may be
considered for nomination to the NRHP in the future. Trails that are
either on the register or may be considered for the register would be
preserved and protected while stabilizing the trail structure for safety
and historic preservation. In reconstruction, particular care and
attention would be given to matching the historic appearance of the
trail.

**Trail Maintenance Equipment and Tool Use**

The Minimum Requirement Analysis (Appendix B) would be used during trail
work planning and operations. Hand tools would be used as a first
choice. The use of motorized equipment and mechanized transport would be
assessed on a case-by-case basis.

**Trailhead Parking Area Size and Function**

Although trailhead parking areas are outside of the area covered in this
plan/EA, they are considered integral to the management of the
backcountry areas they adjoin. For these reasons the following trailhead
and trailhead parking area actions would be implemented.

-   Trailhead parking areas would be appropriate to the adjoining
    backcountry area use limits and use types (horse trailer parking in
    areas with horse use).

-   Trailhead areas would be used to educate backcountry visitors
    (bulletin boards).

-   Trailheads would be identified to concentrate use to appropriate
    areas (as opposed to dispersed use throughout a boundary area).

-   Trailhead parking areas would be placed within the park boundary in
    order to maintain control of appropriate size, function, and
    location.

-   Where needed, the conditions for trailhead access would be
    negotiated with adjacent land owners.

**Radio Repeaters**

There are two radio repeaters within the backcountry. They are located
on West Temple and on Timber Top Mountain. These structures are
considered essential for public safety and administrative use. Repairs
and improvements to these facilities would be accomplished using the
Minimum Requirement Analysis.

Generally, new radio repeaters, or other communication towers, equipment
or facilities, would not be allowed in backcountry/wilderness unless
approved following an environmental analysis which at a minimum includes
an Environmental Screening Form and the Minimum Requirement Analysis
(Appendix B).

**Food Protection Devices**

Feeding of wildlife by visitors, both intentional and unintentional, can
adversely affect wildlife by altering natural diet and causing nuisance
behavior to develop. Food protection systems can be an important tool in
minimizing unacceptable interactions.

If unacceptable impacts between visitors and wildlife occur, or the
potential for problems is high, visitors may be required to carry and
use portable food storage systems or use fixed food storage systems
provided. Visitors would be encouraged to report negative animal/human
interaction. Any incidents where animals obtain food, damage equipment,
or acts in an aggressive manner would be investigated.

Food storage devices may be placed at designated campsites. These
devices may only be placed where a demonstrated need exists and should
be removed when determined that they are no longer necessary. They are
to be kept to the minimum necessary, since resource impacts could result
from the design and placement of such systems. An Environmental
Screening Form and Minimum Requirement Analysis (Appendix B) would be
required before a device is put in place. Currently there are food
protection devices at three backcountry campsite along LaVerkin Creek
because of a problem with ringtail cats.

**Route and Other Markings**

Cairns may be used as necessary to define a route or to provide for
public safety. However, the construction of new cairns is discouraged
except in cases where it is necessary to protect natural or cultural
resources.

Flagging and other temporary markings in any area are prohibited except
during emergency operations or as approved for research and monitoring.
If used, they must be removed once the activity has concluded.

**Signs**

Certain signs in the backcountry would be allowed to provide
orientation, safety and regulatory information. Signs may be necessary
to manage and protect resources and visitors.

Signs necessary to protect natural and cultural resources would be the
minimum size and number necessary. Signs to convey natural and cultural
history of the area would not be located within recommended wilderness;
this information would be provided through trailhead signage,
publications, or other means.

**Fencing, Retaining Walls, Paved Trails**

Fences, retaining walls and paved trails detract from the wilderness
scene and would generally not be allowed. On a case-by-case basis, in
order to protect resources or provide for visitor safety, they may be
allowed if other techniques (e.g., education, signing) are not adequate
or feasible. Fencing would be removed when no longer needed. The
historic paved trails to the West Rim and East Rim would continue to be
maintained as such.

Any proposal to erect fencing, a retaining wall or maintain the paved
trails would require the completion of an Environmental Screening Form
and a Minimum Requirement Analysis (Appendix B).

Historic fences would be documented and then allowed to disintegrate in
place. Likewise, rock walls, cairns and other features that may be
either historic or prehistoric in age would not be disturbed.

**Use of Minimum Tool for Facility Maintenance**

In general, the maintenance, rehabilitation, and reconstruction of any
structure in the backcountry would be accomplished using the minimum
tool necessary for the job. This requires analysis of the impacts of the
tools to be used on wilderness values. Issues such as duration and
intensity of noise levels, means for transporting materials and tools to
the job site, use of local materials versus materials brought to the
site, etc. would be considered in the determination of minimum tool. The
consideration of minimum tool would be addressed during the completion
of the Environmental Screening Form and Minimum Requirement Analysis
(Appendix B).

Convenience alone would not be considered sufficient justification for
the use of motorized equipment and mechanical transport. However, it is
recognized that certain modern tools may expedite a project and thereby
minimize the duration of disturbance to wilderness values and reduce the
exposure of employees to hazardous conditions. In cases that these tools
are approved for use, efforts would be made to minimize the duration and
intensity of the disturbance.

**Parachuting (Base Jumping)**

NPS *Management Policies 2006* 8.2.2.7 states: *Parachuting (or Base
Jumping), whether from an aircraft, structure, or natural feature is
generally prohibited by 36 CFR 2.17(a)(3). However, if determined
through a park planning process to be an appropriate activity, it may be
allowed pursuant to the terms and conditions of a permit.*

The ZION GMP completed in 2001 does not have a provision to allow base
jumping in the park. Also, base jumping was not identified by the public
as an activity they would like to see allowed in ZION, so it was not
addressed as a potential activity in this document. Therefore, base
jumping would continue to be prohibited in ZION and would be subject to
the regulations outlined in 36 CRF 2.17.

**Wilderness Committee**

The Superintendent chartered a Wilderness Committee in September 2003.
The committee was established to facilitate the review of projects
proposed within recommended wilderness in ZION. The committee concept is
working in the park and would continue into the future.

The committee is lead by the Plateau District Ranger with committee
members from visitor and resource protection, Kolob District, concession
management, fire management, interpretation and resource management.
Monthly meetings are held to evaluate proposals, provide mitigation when
necessary, and make recommendations to the Superintendent.

**Indicators and Standards for Visitor Experience and Resource
Protection**

While social and resource indicators generally remain the same across
Management Zones, standards may be different. Table 14 outlines:
resource protection indicators, standards, monitoring methods and
schedules, and management options. Table 15 outlines: visitor experience
indicators, standards, monitoring methods and schedules, and management
options.

+-----+----------+----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| *   |          |          |             |             |             |
| *Ta |          |          |             |             |             |
| ble |          |          |             |             |             |
| 14: |          |          |             |             |             |
| Re  |          |          |             |             |             |
| sou |          |          |             |             |             |
| rce |          |          |             |             |             |
| P   |          |          |             |             |             |
| rot |          |          |             |             |             |
| ect |          |          |             |             |             |
| ion |          |          |             |             |             |
| I   |          |          |             |             |             |
| ndi |          |          |             |             |             |
| cat |          |          |             |             |             |
| ors |          |          |             |             |             |
| and |          |          |             |             |             |
| St  |          |          |             |             |             |
| and |          |          |             |             |             |
| ard |          |          |             |             |             |
| s** |          |          |             |             |             |
+=====+==========+==========+=============+=============+=============+
| **  | **Item   | **Ind    | *           | *           | *           |
| Zon | Mon      | icator** | *Standard** | *Monitoring | *Management |
| e** | itored** |          |             | Methods &   | Options**   |
|     |          |          |             | Schedule**  |             |
+-----+----------+----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Pr  | Non-de   | P        | Zero        | ∙ Count &   | ∙ Education |
| ist | signated | ermanent |             | document    |             |
| ine | c        | obvious  |             | number of   | ∙           |
|     | ampsites | campsite |             | obvious     | Obliterate  |
|     |          |          |             | campsites   | campsite    |
|     |          | (soil &  |             |             |             |
|     |          | veg      |             | ∙ Every     | ∙ Reduce    |
|     |          | etation) |             | year --     | camping     |
|     |          |          |             | monitor at  | group size  |
|     |          |          |             | the same    |             |
|     |          |          |             | time of     | ∙           |
|     |          |          |             | year        | Temporarily |
|     |          |          |             |             | close areas |
|     |          |          |             |             | for         |
|     |          |          |             |             | recovery    |
|     |          |          |             |             |             |
|     |          |          |             |             | ∙ Delineate |
|     |          |          |             |             | camping     |
|     |          |          |             |             | areas       |
|     |          |          |             |             | within a    |
|     |          |          |             |             | c           |
|     |          |          |             |             | anyon/area, |
|     |          |          |             |             | rotate      |
|     |          |          |             |             | camping     |
|     |          |          |             |             | between     |
|     |          |          |             |             | areas by    |
|     |          |          |             |             | year --     |
|     |          |          |             |             | each year   |
|     |          |          |             |             | an area(s)  |
|     |          |          |             |             | is closed   |
|     |          |          |             |             | to camping  |
|     |          |          |             |             |             |
|     |          |          |             |             | ∙ Designate |
|     |          |          |             |             | campsites   |
|     |          |          |             |             | for         |
|     |          |          |             |             | adm         |
|     |          |          |             |             | inistrative |
|     |          |          |             |             | use         |
|     |          |          |             |             | (sometimes  |
|     |          |          |             |             | focusing    |
|     |          |          |             |             | use is more |
|     |          |          |             |             | desirable)  |
|     |          |          |             |             | -- need     |
|     |          |          |             |             | au          |
|     |          |          |             |             | thorization |
|     |          |          |             |             | from        |
|     |          |          |             |             | wilderness  |
|     |          |          |             |             | committee   |
+-----+----------+----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|     | Non-ma   | Soil     | Route Cross | ∙ Marion    | ∙ Education |
|     | intained | loss     | Sectional   | trail       |             |
|     | access   |          | Area =140   | monitoring  | ∙ Limit use |
|     | routes   |          | (39" wide X | protocol    | (reduce     |
|     | -- to    |          | 4" deep)    | (5-m        | group size, |
|     | clim     |          | (using a    | easurements | numbers per |
|     | bs/areas |          | moving      | per route)  | day, etc.)  |
|     | or       |          | average to  |             |             |
|     | into/out |          | analyze)    | ∙ Every     | ∙ Add       |
|     | of       |          |             | year for    | erosion     |
|     | canyons  |          |             | identified  | control     |
|     |          |          |             | problem     | devices     |
|     | (Mystery |          |             | routes --   |             |
|     | Canyon)  |          |             | monitor at  | ∙ Improve   |
|     |          |          |             | the same    | route       |
|     |          |          |             | time of     |             |
|     |          |          |             | year        | ∙ Build     |
|     |          |          |             |             | trail       |
|     |          |          |             |             |             |
|     |          |          |             |             | ∙ Close     |
|     |          |          |             |             | route       |
+-----+----------+----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|     |          | Number   | No more     | ∙ Count &   | ∙ Education |
|     |          | of       | than 1 to   | document    |             |
|     |          | access   | climbing    | number of   | ∙           |
|     |          | routes   | route/area, | routes      | Obliterate  |
|     |          | to       | canyon      |             | access      |
|     |          | cli      |             | ∙ Every     | routes      |
|     |          | mb/area, |             | year for    |             |
|     |          | canyon   |             | identified  |             |
|     |          |          |             | problem     |             |
|     |          | (soil &  |             | routes --   |             |
|     |          | veg      |             | monitor at  |             |
|     |          | etation) |             | the same    |             |
|     |          |          |             | time of     |             |
|     |          |          |             | year        |             |
+-----+----------+----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|     | Non-ma   | Number   | No more     | ∙ Count &   | ∙ Education |
|     | intained | of       | that 1 over | document    |             |
|     | routes   | routes   | 90% of the  | number of   | ∙ Limit use |
|     |          | to/from  | route       | routes      | (reduce     |
|     | (cross   | feat     |             |             | group size, |
|     | -country | ure/area |             | ∙ Every     | numbers per |
|     | travel)  |          |             | year for    | day, etc.)  |
|     |          | (soil &  |             | identified  |             |
|     |          | veg      |             | problem     | ∙           |
|     |          | etation) |             | routes --   | Obliterate  |
|     |          |          |             | monitor at  | excess      |
|     |          |          |             | the same    | routes      |
|     |          |          |             | time of     |             |
|     |          |          |             | year        | ∙ Close     |
|     |          |          |             |             | area        |
|     |          |          |             |             | (temporary  |
|     |          |          |             |             | or          |
|     |          |          |             |             | permanent)  |
+-----+----------+----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Pri | De       | Area of  | Up to 3%    | ∙ Marion    | ∙ Education |
| mit | signated | campsite | increase    | campsite    |             |
| ive | c        | dis      | from        | monitoring  | ∙ Add       |
|     | ampsites | turbance | identified  | method      | natural     |
|     |          |          | campsite    |             | barriers to |
|     | (West    | (soil &  | square foot | ∙ 3-year    | delineate   |
|     | Rim,     | veg      | measurement | interval -- | site        |
|     | LaVerkin | etation) |             | monitor at  | (iceberg    |
|     | Creek,   |          |             | the same    | rocks,      |
|     | Narrows, |          |             | time of     | plant       |
|     | Chinle   |          |             | year        | cactus,     |
|     | Trail/   |          |             |             | etc.)       |
|     | Coalpits |          |             |             |             |
|     | Wash)    |          |             |             | ∙ Reduce    |
|     |          |          |             |             | group size  |
|     |          |          |             |             | for         |
|     |          |          |             |             | campsite    |
|     |          |          |             |             |             |
|     |          |          |             |             | ∙ Relocate  |
|     |          |          |             |             | campsite    |
|     |          |          |             |             |             |
|     |          |          |             |             | ∙ Close     |
|     |          |          |             |             | campsite    |
+-----+----------+----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|     |          | Number   | No more     | ∙ Count &   | ∙ Education |
|     |          | of       | than 4      | document    |             |
|     |          | trails   | trails at   | number of   | ∙           |
|     |          | that     | 90% of the  | trails as   | Obliterate  |
|     |          | connect  | campsites   | part of     | excess      |
|     |          | to the   |             | campsite    | trails      |
|     |          | campsite |             | monitoring  |             |
|     |          | boundary |             |             | ∙ Reduce    |
|     |          |          |             | ∙ 3-year    | group size  |
|     |          | (soil &  |             | interval -- | for         |
|     |          | veg      |             | monitor at  | campsite    |
|     |          | etation) |             | the same    |             |
|     |          |          |             | time of     | ∙ Sign      |
|     |          |          |             | year        | necessary   |
|     |          |          |             |             | trails      |
+-----+----------+----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|     |          | Human    | 50% of      | ∙ Monitor   | ∙ Education |
|     |          | waste    | campsites   | as above as |             |
|     |          |          | within      | part of     | ∙ Recommend |
|     |          |          | campsite    | campsite    | visitors    |
|     |          |          | area would  | monitoring  | carry out   |
|     |          |          | have no     |             | waste       |
|     |          |          | visible     |             |             |
|     |          |          | human waste |             | ∙ Require   |
|     |          |          |             |             | visitors to |
|     |          |          | 90% of      |             | carry out   |
|     |          |          | campsites   |             | waste       |
|     |          |          | would have  |             |             |
|     |          |          | no more     |             | ∙ Close     |
|     |          |          | than two    |             | campsite    |
|     |          |          | human waste |             |             |
|     |          |          | sites       |             |             |
+-----+----------+----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|     | Non-de   | Area of  | Up to 3%    | ∙ Marion    | ∙ Education |
|     | signated | campsite | increase    | campsite    |             |
|     | camp     | dis      | from        | monitoring  | ∙ Add       |
|     | areas    | turbance | identified  | method      | natural     |
|     |          |          | campsite    |             | barriers to |
|     | \(1\)    | (soil &  | square foot | ∙ 3-year    | delineate   |
|     | East Rim | veg      | measurement | interval -- | site        |
|     | & East   | etation) |             | monitor at  | (iceberg    |
|     | Mesa     |          |             | the same    | rocks,      |
|     |          |          |             | time of     | plant       |
|     | \(2\)    |          |             | year        | cactus,     |
|     | Lower    |          |             |             | etc.)       |
|     | Right    |          |             |             |             |
|     | Fork     |          |             |             | ∙ Reduce    |
|     |          |          |             |             | group size  |
|     | \(3\)    |          |             |             | for         |
|     | N        |          |             |             | campsite    |
|     | orthgate |          |             |             |             |
|     | Peaks &  |          |             |             | ∙ Designate |
|     | Wildcat  |          |             |             | campsite    |
|     | Canyon   |          |             |             |             |
|     | Trails   |          |             |             | ∙ Relocate  |
|     |          |          |             |             | campsite    |
|     |          |          |             |             |             |
|     |          |          |             |             | ∙ Close     |
|     |          |          |             |             | campsite    |
+-----+----------+----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|     |          | Number   | No increase | ∙ Count &   | ∙ Education |
|     |          | of       | over        | document    |             |
|     |          | iden     | existing    | number of   | ∙ Reduce    |
|     |          | tifiable |             | campsites   | group size  |
|     |          | c        |             | as part of  | for         |
|     |          | ampsites |             | campsite    | campsite    |
|     |          | by trail |             | monitoring  |             |
|     |          | system   |             |             | ∙           |
|     |          |          |             | ∙ 3-year    | Obliterate  |
|     |          | (soil &  |             | interval -- | campsite    |
|     |          | veg      |             | monitor at  |             |
|     |          | etation) |             | the same    | ∙           |
|     |          |          |             | time of     | Designated  |
|     |          |          |             | year        | campsite    |
+-----+----------+----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|     | Ma       | Soil     | Trail Cross | ∙ Marion    | ∙ Reroute   |
|     | intained | loss     | Sectional   | trail       | trail       |
|     | dirt     | (        | Area =140   | monitoring  |             |
|     | trails   | erosion) | (39" wide X | protocol    | ∙ Add       |
|     |          |          | 4" deep)    |             | erosion     |
|     | (West    |          | (using a    | ∙ 5-year    | control     |
|     | Rim,     |          | moving      | interval -- | features    |
|     | T        |          | average to  | monitor at  |             |
|     | elephone |          | analyze)    | the same    | ∙ Limit     |
|     | Canyon,  |          |             | time of     | number or   |
|     | East     |          |             | year        | close trail |
|     | Mesa,    |          |             |             | to horses   |
|     | East     |          |             |             | where this  |
|     | Rim,     |          |             |             | use is      |
|     | Cable    |          |             |             | allowed     |
|     | M        |          |             |             | (permanent  |
|     | ountain, |          |             |             | or seasonal |
|     | Deertrap |          |             |             | closure)    |
|     | M        |          |             |             |             |
|     | ountain, |          |             |             | ∙ Limit     |
|     | N        |          |             |             | human use   |
|     | orthgate |          |             |             | (seasonal,  |
|     | Peaks,   |          |             |             | number per  |
|     | Co       |          |             |             | day, etc.)  |
|     | nnector, |          |             |             |             |
|     | LaVerkin |          |             |             |             |
|     | Creek,   |          |             |             |             |
|     | Hop      |          |             |             |             |
|     | Valley,  |          |             |             |             |
|     | Chinle   |          |             |             |             |
|     | Trail)   |          |             |             |             |
+-----+----------+----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|     |          | Number   | No more     | ∙ Count &   | ∙ Education |
|     |          | of       | than 4      | document    |             |
|     |          | informal | visi        | number of   | ∙           |
|     |          | visitor  | tor-created | trails as   | Obliterate  |
|     |          | -created | trails per  | part of     | excess      |
|     |          | trails   | trail mile  | trail       | trails      |
|     |          | off      |             | monitoring  |             |
|     |          | de       |             |             | ∙ Signs     |
|     |          | signated |             | ∙ 5-year    |             |
|     |          | trails   |             | interval -- |             |
|     |          |          |             | monitor at  |             |
|     |          | (soil &  |             | the same    |             |
|     |          | veg      |             | time of     |             |
|     |          | etation) |             | year        |             |
+-----+----------+----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|     | Non-ma   | Number   | No more     | ∙ Count &   | ∙ Education |
|     | intained | of       | than 2 over | document    |             |
|     | dirt     | parallel | 90% of the  | number of   | ∙           |
|     | routes   | routes   | route       | routes      | Obliterate  |
|     |          | -- often |             |             | excess      |
|     | (Left    | in a     |             | ∙ 3-year    | routes      |
|     | Fork     | canyon   |             | interval -- |             |
|     | North    | bottom   |             | monitor at  | ∙ Signs     |
|     | Cr.,     |          |             | the same    |             |
|     | Right    | (soil &  |             | time of     | ∙ Limit use |
|     | Fork     | veg      |             | year        | (reduce     |
|     | North    | etation) |             |             | group size, |
|     | Cr.,     |          |             |             | numbers per |
|     | North    |          |             |             | day, etc.)  |
|     | Fork     |          |             |             |             |
|     | Taylor   |          |             |             | ∙ Build or  |
|     | Cr.,     |          |             |             | designate   |
|     | Middle   |          |             |             | trail       |
|     | Fork     |          |             |             |             |
|     | Taylor   |          |             |             |             |
|     | Cr.,     |          |             |             |             |
|     | South    |          |             |             |             |
|     | Fork     |          |             |             |             |
|     | Taylor   |          |             |             |             |
|     | Cr.,     |          |             |             |             |
|     | Narrows, |          |             |             |             |
|     | Or       |          |             |             |             |
|     | derville |          |             |             |             |
|     | Canyon,  |          |             |             |             |
|     | Coalpi   |          |             |             |             |
|     | ts-below |          |             |             |             |
|     | spring,  |          |             |             |             |
|     | S        |          |             |             |             |
|     | coggins, |          |             |             |             |
|     | Huber)   |          |             |             |             |
+-----+----------+----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|     | Non-ma   | Soil     | Route Cross | ∙ Marion    | ∙ Education |
|     | intained | loss     | Sectional   | trail       |             |
|     | access   |          | Area =140   | monitoring  | ∙           |
|     | routes   |          | (39" wide X | protocol    | Obliterate  |
|     | to       |          | 4" deep)    | (5-m        | excess      |
|     | cl       |          | (using a    | easurements | routes      |
|     | imb/area |          | moving      | per route)  |             |
|     | or       |          | average to  | (consider   | ∙ Signs     |
|     | into-out |          | analyze)    | photo       |             |
|     | of       |          |             | point)      | ∙ Limit use |
|     | canyon   |          |             |             | (reduce     |
|     |          |          |             | ∙ Every     | group size, |
|     | (Left &  |          |             | year for    | numbers per |
|     | Right    |          |             | identified  | day, etc.)  |
|     | Forks    |          |             | problem     |             |
|     | North    |          |             | routes --   | ∙ Build or  |
|     | Creek,   |          |             | monitor at  | designate   |
|     | Spry     |          |             | the same    | trail       |
|     | Canyon,  |          |             | time of     |             |
|     | Keyhole  |          |             | year        |             |
|     | Canyon,  |          |             |             |             |
|     | Pine     |          |             |             |             |
|     | Creek)   |          |             |             |             |
+-----+----------+----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|     |          | Number   | No more     | ∙ Count &   | ∙ Add       |
|     |          | of       | than 1 to   | document    | erosion     |
|     |          | access   | climbing    | number of   | control     |
|     |          | routes   | route/area, | routes      | features    |
|     |          | to       | canyon      |             |             |
|     |          | cli      |             | ∙ Every     | ∙ Improve   |
|     |          | mb/area, |             | year for    | route       |
|     |          | canyon   |             | identified  |             |
|     |          |          |             | problem     | ∙ Limit use |
|     |          | (soil &  |             | routes --   | (reduce     |
|     |          | veg      |             | monitor at  | group size, |
|     |          | etation) |             | the same    | numbers per |
|     |          |          |             | time of     | day, etc.)  |
|     |          |          |             | year        |             |
|     |          |          |             |             | ∙ Build or  |
|     |          |          |             |             | designate   |
|     |          |          |             |             | trail       |
|     |          |          |             |             |             |
|     |          |          |             |             | ∙ Close     |
|     |          |          |             |             | route       |
+-----+----------+----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| T   | Ma       | Number   | No more     | ∙ Count &   | ∙ Education |
| ran | intained | of       | than 7 per  | document    |             |
| sit | paved    | visitor  | trail mile  | number of   | ∙           |
| ion | trails   | -created |             | trails      | Obliterate  |
|     |          | trails   |             |             | excess      |
|     | (Obs     |          |             | ∙ Every     | trails      |
|     | ervation | (soil &  |             | year --     |             |
|     | Point)   | veg      |             | monitor at  | ∙ Signs     |
|     |          | etation) |             | the same    |             |
|     |          |          |             | time of     | ∙ Barriers  |
|     |          |          |             | year        | (fences,    |
|     |          |          |             |             | etc.)       |
+-----+----------+----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|     | Ma       | Soil     | Trail Cross | ∙ Marion    | ∙ Reroute   |
|     | intained | loss     | Sectional   | trail       | trail       |
|     | dirt     |          | Area =      | monitoring  |             |
|     | trails   |          | baseline    | protocol    | ∙ Add       |
|     |          |          | measurement |             | erosion     |
|     | (Obs     |          | -- not      | ∙ 5-year    | control     |
|     | ervation |          | getting     | interval    | features    |
|     | Point-on |          | worse no    |             |             |
|     | rim,     |          | more than   |             | ∙ Barriers  |
|     | Timber   |          | 30% of the  |             | (fences,    |
|     | Creek    |          | time        |             | etc.)       |
|     | O        |          |             |             |             |
|     | verlook) |          |             |             | ∙ Limit use |
|     |          |          |             |             | (season,    |
|     |          |          |             |             | numbers per |
|     |          |          |             |             | day, etc.)  |
+-----+----------+----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|     |          | Number   | No more     | ∙ Count &   | ∙ Education |
|     |          | of       | than 7 per  | document    |             |
|     |          | visitor  | trail mile  | number of   | ∙           |
|     |          | -created |             | trails      | Obliterate  |
|     |          | trails   |             |             | excess      |
|     |          |          |             | ∙ Every     | trails      |
|     |          | (soil &  |             | year --     |             |
|     |          | veg      |             | monitor at  | ∙ Signs     |
|     |          | etation) |             | the same    |             |
|     |          |          |             | time each   | ∙ Barriers  |
|     |          |          |             | year        | (fences,    |
|     |          |          |             |             | etc.)       |
+-----+----------+----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|     | Non-ma   | Refer to |             |             |             |
|     | intained | above    |             |             |             |
|     | access   | Pr       |             |             |             |
|     | routes   | imitive. |             |             |             |
|     | -- to    |          |             |             |             |
|     | clim     |          |             |             |             |
|     | bs/areas |          |             |             |             |
|     | or       |          |             |             |             |
|     | into/out |          |             |             |             |
|     | of       |          |             |             |             |
|     | canyons  |          |             |             |             |
+-----+----------+----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|     | Lower    | Number   | No more     | ∙ Count &   | ∙ Education |
|     | Narrows  | of       | than 2 over | document    | (onsite &   |
|     | (end of  | parallel | 90% of the  | number of   | offsite)    |
|     | R        | routes   | route       | routes      |             |
|     | iverside |          |             |             | ∙           |
|     | Walk to  | (soil &  |             | ∙ Every     | Obliterate  |
|     | Or       | veg      |             | year --     | excess      |
|     | derville | etation) |             | monitor at  | routes      |
|     | Canyon)  |          |             | the same    |             |
|     |          |          |             | time each   | ∙ Barriers  |
|     |          |          |             | year        | (fences,    |
|     |          |          |             |             | etc.)       |
|     |          |          |             |             |             |
|     |          |          |             |             | ∙ Signs     |
|     |          |          |             |             |             |
|     |          |          |             |             | ∙ Limit use |
|     |          |          |             |             | (number of  |
|     |          |          |             |             | people)     |
+-----+----------+----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|     |          | Soil     | 2-foot      | ∙ One       | ∙ Education |
|     |          | loss --  | maximum     | measurement | (onsite &   |
|     |          | maximum  | incision    | per route   | offsite)    |
|     |          | incision | depth       | segment at  |             |
|     |          | per      |             | the deepest | ∙ Reroute   |
|     |          | route    |             | point on    | and/or      |
|     |          | segment  |             | route       | maintain    |
|     |          | (route   |             | segment     | route       |
|     |          | segment  |             |             |             |
|     |          | = exit   |             | ∙ Every     | ∙ Barriers  |
|     |          | the      |             | year --     | (fences,    |
|     |          | river,   |             | monitor at  | etc.)       |
|     |          | walk     |             | the same    |             |
|     |          | over     |             | time each   | ∙ Signs     |
|     |          | land     |             | year        |             |
|     |          | until    |             |             | ∙ Limit use |
|     |          | you      |             |             | (number of  |
|     |          | reenter  |             |             | people)     |
|     |          | the      |             |             |             |
|     |          | river)   |             |             |             |
+-----+----------+----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Re  | Non-de   | P        | Zero        | ∙ Count &   | ∙ Education |
| sea | signated | ermanent |             | document    |             |
| rch | c        | obvious  |             | number of   | ∙           |
| N   | ampsites | c        |             | campsites   | Obliterate  |
| atu |          | ampsites |             |             | campsite    |
| ral |          |          |             | ∙ Every     |             |
|     |          | (soil &  |             | year in     | ∙ Limit     |
| A   |          | veg      |             | identified  | group size  |
| rea |          | etation) |             | RNAs, as    |             |
|     |          |          |             | needed in   | ∙ Designate |
|     |          |          |             | others      | campsites   |
|     |          |          |             |             | for         |
|     |          |          |             |             | adm         |
|     |          |          |             |             | inistrative |
|     |          |          |             |             | use         |
|     |          |          |             |             | (sometimes  |
|     |          |          |             |             | focusing    |
|     |          |          |             |             | use may be  |
|     |          |          |             |             | more        |
|     |          |          |             |             | desirable)  |
|     |          |          |             |             | -- need     |
|     |          |          |             |             | au          |
|     |          |          |             |             | thorization |
|     |          |          |             |             | from        |
|     |          |          |             |             | wilderness  |
|     |          |          |             |             | committee   |
+-----+----------+----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
|     | Non-ma   | Number   | No more     | ∙ Count &   | ∙ Education |
|     | intained | of       | than 1 to   | document    |             |
|     | routes   | routes   | area or     | number of   | ∙           |
|     |          |          | feature     | routes      | Obliterate  |
|     |          | (soil &  |             |             | excess      |
|     |          | veg      |             | ∙ Every     | routes      |
|     |          | etation) |             | year in     |             |
|     |          |          |             | identified  | ∙ Limit use |
|     |          |          |             | RNAs, as    | (numbers of |
|     |          |          |             | needed in   | people)     |
|     |          |          |             | others      |             |
|     |          |          |             |             | ∙           |
|     |          |          |             |             | Temporarily |
|     |          |          |             |             | close area  |
+-----+----------+----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| All | Mexican  | Spotted  | No evidence | ∙ Continue  | ∙ Limit     |
|     | Spotted  | owl      | of adverse  | to monitor  | number of   |
|     | Owl      | nesting  | effect from | nest site   | day hikers  |
|     |          | &        | human       | on a yearly |             |
|     |          | fledging | activity    | basis       | ∙ Limit day |
|     |          |          |             |             | use beyond  |
|     |          |          |             | ∙ Continue  | a certain   |
|     |          |          |             | to search   | point       |
|     |          |          |             | for new     |             |
|     |          |          |             | nest sites  | ∙ Close     |
|     |          |          |             | as time and | canyon      |
|     |          |          |             | money allow | during      |
|     |          |          |             |             | critical    |
|     |          |          |             |             | nesting     |
|     |          |          |             |             | periods     |
|     |          |          |             |             |             |
|     |          |          |             |             | ∙ Move      |
|     |          |          |             |             | campsite    |
|     |          |          |             |             |             |
|     |          |          |             |             | ∙ Close     |
|     |          |          |             |             | area to     |
|     |          |          |             |             | camping     |
+-----+----------+----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| All | P        | Falcon   | No evidence | ∙ Continue  | ∙ Close     |
|     | eregrine | nesting  | of adverse  | to monitor  | area to     |
|     | Falcon   | &        | effect from | active      | climbing    |
|     |          | fledging | human       | sites on a  | during      |
|     |          |          | activity    | yearly      | critical    |
|     |          |          |             | basis       | times       |
|     |          |          |             |             |             |
|     |          |          |             | ∙ Continue  | ∙ Close     |
|     |          |          |             | to search   | area to     |
|     |          |          |             | for new     | climbing on |
|     |          |          |             | nest sites  | permanent   |
|     |          |          |             | as time and | basis       |
|     |          |          |             | money allow |             |
+-----+----------+----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| All | Shivwits | Number & | No evidence | ∙ Continue  | ∙ Better    |
|     | M        | health   | of adverse  | to monitor  | define      |
|     | ilkvetch | of       | effect from | yearly in   | trail       |
|     |          | plants   | human       | the spring  |             |
|     |          |          | activity    |             | ∙ Move      |
|     |          |          |             |             | trail       |
|     |          |          |             |             |             |
|     |          |          |             |             | ∙ Patrol    |
|     |          |          |             |             | when soil   |
|     |          |          |             |             | is wet      |
|     |          |          |             |             |             |
|     |          |          |             |             | ∙ Close     |
|     |          |          |             |             | trail to    |
|     |          |          |             |             | horse use   |
+-----+----------+----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| All | Cultural | Site     | No evidence | ∙ No        | ∙ Education |
|     | Resource | c        | of adverse  | regular     |             |
|     | Sites    | ondition | effect from | schedule -- | ∙ Limit     |
|     |          | --       | human       | visit sites | access to   |
|     |          | v        | visitation  | with        | sites       |
|     |          | andalism | -- no       | features as |             |
|     |          | of sites | vandalism   | part of     | ∙ Limit     |
|     |          |          |             | regular     | access to   |
|     |          |          |             | backcountry | area        |
|     |          |          |             | patrol --   |             |
|     |          |          |             | highest     | ∙ Physical  |
|     |          |          |             | priority    | barriers    |
|     |          |          |             | sites are   | around      |
|     |          |          |             | those with  | sites       |
|     |          |          |             | heavy       |             |
|     |          |          |             | visitation  | ∙ Signs     |
|     |          |          |             |             |             |
|     |          |          |             | ∙ Other     | ∙ Increased |
|     |          |          |             | sites       | law         |
|     |          |          |             | visited as  | enforcement |
|     |          |          |             | needed      | patrols     |
|     |          |          |             |             |             |
|     |          |          |             |             | ∙ Temporary |
|     |          |          |             |             | or          |
|     |          |          |             |             | permanent   |
|     |          |          |             |             | closure of  |
|     |          |          |             |             | area        |
+-----+----------+----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

+-------+-------+------------+-------------+------------+------------+
| **    |       |            |             |            |            |
| Table |       |            |             |            |            |
| 15:   |       |            |             |            |            |
| Vi    |       |            |             |            |            |
| sitor |       |            |             |            |            |
| Exper |       |            |             |            |            |
| ience |       |            |             |            |            |
| Indic |       |            |             |            |            |
| ators |       |            |             |            |            |
| and   |       |            |             |            |            |
| S     |       |            |             |            |            |
| tanda |       |            |             |            |            |
| rds** |       |            |             |            |            |
+=======+=======+============+=============+============+============+
| **Z   | *     | **I        | *           | **         | **         |
| one** | *Item | ndicator** | *Standard** | Monitoring | Management |
|       | M     |            |             | Method &   | Options**  |
|       | onito |            |             | Schedule** |            |
|       | red** |            |             |            |            |
+-------+-------+------------+-------------+------------+------------+
| Pri   | Hiker | Number of  | 90% of      | Staff      | ∙          |
| stine | encou | encounters | visitors    | would      | Education  |
|       | nters |            | would not   | complete   |            |
|       |       |            | see or hear | form       | ∙ Reduce   |
|       |       |            | more than 2 | whenever   | group size |
|       |       |            | group per   | in         | limit      |
|       |       |            | day         | b          |            |
|       |       |            |             | ackcountry | ∙ Limit    |
|       |       |            |             |            | number of  |
|       |       |            |             |            | hikers on  |
|       |       |            |             |            | route      |
+-------+-------+------------+-------------+------------+------------+
|       | Group | Number of  | 90% of      | Staff      | ∙ Reduce   |
|       | encou | group      | visitors    | would      | group size |
|       | nters | encounters | hiking      | complete   | limit      |
|       |       | larger     | would not   | form       |            |
|       |       | than 6     | encounter   | whenever   |            |
|       |       | people per | groups      | in         |            |
|       |       | group      | larger than | b          |            |
|       |       | outside of | 6           | ackcountry |            |
|       |       | canyons    |             |            |            |
+-------+-------+------------+-------------+------------+------------+
| Prim  | Hiker | Number of  | 90% of      | Staff      | ∙          |
| itive | encou | encounters | visitors    | would      | Education  |
|       | nters |            | would not   | complete   |            |
|       |       |            | see more    | form       | ∙ Reduce   |
|       |       |            | than 10     | whenever   | group size |
|       |       |            | other hiker | in         | limit      |
|       |       |            | groups per  | b          |            |
|       |       |            | day         | ackcountry | ∙ Limit    |
|       |       |            |             |            | number of  |
|       |       |            |             |            | hikers on  |
|       |       |            |             |            | trail      |
+-------+-------+------------+-------------+------------+------------+
|       | Stock | Number of  | On trail    | Staff      | ∙          |
|       | group | encounters | open to     | would      | Education  |
|       | encou |            | stock use;  | complete   |            |
|       | nters |            | stock users | form       | ∙ Reduce   |
|       |       |            | would not   | whenever   | group size |
|       |       |            | see more    | in         | limit      |
|       |       |            | than 1      | b          |            |
|       |       |            | other stock | ackcountry | ∙ Limit    |
|       |       |            | group on    |            | number of  |
|       |       |            | the same    |            | stock on   |
|       |       |            | trail       |            | trail      |
+-------+-------+------------+-------------+------------+------------+
| Trans | Vi    | Visitor    | 80% of      | Visitor    | ∙          |
| ition | sitor | sa         | visitors    | survey     | Education  |
|       | sa    | tisfaction | satisfied   | completed  |            |
| ∙O    | tisfa |            | with hiking | every      | ∙          |
| bserv | ction |            | experience  | 5-years.   | Establish  |
| ation |       |            |             |            | group size |
| Point |       |            |             |            | limit      |
| Trail |       |            |             |            |            |
|       |       |            |             |            | ∙ Limit    |
| ∙Na   |       |            |             |            | number of  |
| rrows |       |            |             |            | hikers on  |
| below |       |            |             |            | trail      |
| Order |       |            |             |            |            |
| ville |       |            |             |            |            |
| Cyn.  |       |            |             |            |            |
|       |       |            |             |            |            |
| ∙T    |       |            |             |            |            |
| imber |       |            |             |            |            |
| Creek |       |            |             |            |            |
| Trail |       |            |             |            |            |
+-------+-------+------------+-------------+------------+------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488629 .anchor}**Mitigation Measures for
Alternative B**

Mitigation is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR
1508.20) as:

-   Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or
    parts of an action.

-   Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action
    and its implementation.

-   Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the
    affected environment.

-   Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
    maintenance operations during the life of the action.

-   Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute
    resources or environments.

The following mitigations measure would apply to activities and actions
proposed in Alternative B for the backcountry in ZION.

**Wilderness**

-   Minimize use of motorized equipment or mechanical means of transport
    through the use of Minimum Requirement Analysis (Appendix B).

-   In keeping with wilderness character, natural materials would be
    preferred to repair or construct wilderness facilities (e.g., water
    bars, sign posts, tent pads) or restore desired conditions to
    impacted areas.

**Visitor Use and Experience**

-   Inform visitors of planned and current area closures due to
    management activities through press releases, notices at trailhead
    and visitor facility bulletin boards, backcountry permitting, the
    park website, and other means as necessary.

-   To protect visitors, temporarily close trails and/or roads, use
    cautionary signing on trails and/or roads, and close facilities if
    warranted.

-   Limit the number, area, and duration of trail and areas closures in
    order to maintain opportunities for solitude and primitive,
    unconfined recreation.

**Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Animal Species**

-   Comply with the Endangered Species Act.

-   Consult threatened and endangered species recovery plans and
    scientific literature when proposing management activities in
    species habitats.

-   Limit disturbances near nest sites/eyries for Mexican spotted owl,
    peregrine falcon, and goshawks (March-September).

**Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species**

-   Comply with the Endangered Species Act.

-   Consult threatened and endangered species recovery plans,
    specialists, and scientific literature when proposing management
    activities in species habitats.

**Vegetation**

-   Stock must be fed certified weed-free feed 24 hours prior to
    spending the night in the backcountry and while in the backcountry.

-   All equipment, including hand tools, must be washed before use in
    the park. This is to ensure that all soil and potential weed seeds
    are removed.

**Soils**

-   Trails would be closed to stock use during periods of wet weather or
    due to other resources concerns.

**Cultural Resources**

When proposing to designate campsites the following approach would be
used:

-   an archeological survey would be conducted around all proposed
    campsites;

-   if cultural sites are found (1) the campsite would be relocated, (2)
    if the campsite could not be relocated a detailed site recording
    would be conducted including on-site artifact identification,
    analysis, spatial analysis from artifact distributions, systematic
    artifact collection, and detailed feature documentation;

-   document data recovery efforts in a professional report and submit
    it to the SHPO for review;

-   curate all cultural resource materials - artifacts and
    documentation - in park collections.

    []{#__RefHeading___Toc166488630 .anchor}**Alternatives Considered
    But Dismissed From Further Analysis**

The following components of alternatives were identified by the public
through scoping (for a complete description of scoping, refer to the
*Consultation and Coordination* section of this document). For the
reasons stated below the following actions or components of alternatives
will not be analyzed further in this document.

**Allowing commercial use (guiding) in the Pristine Zone.** The GMP
completed in 2001 states:

*No commercial recreational activities, motorized/mechanical uses, or
saddle stock will be permitted \[in the Pristine Zone\] in order to
minimize impacts to other visitors and resources.*

During scoping we asked the public if they were in support of allowing
commercial guiding in the Primitive Zone. An overwhelming majority
responded that they opposed guiding in the Primitive Zone. Many of those
individuals also stated that they supported the continued ban on guiding
in the Pristine Zone. Since the majority of those who commented oppose
guiding in the Primitive Zone and since the Pristine Zone is more
restrictive that the Primitive Zone, an alternative or component of an
alternative to allow commercial guiding in the Pristine Zone will not be
addressed further.

**Opening Goose Creek Canyon Research Natural Area to canyoneering.**
The National Park Service Natural Resource Management Reference Manual
#77 states: *Research Natural Areas (RNAs) are part of a national
network of sites designed to facilitate research and preserve natural
features RNAs are usually established in a typical example of an
ecological community type, preferably one having been little disturbed
in the past and where natural processes are not unduly impeded. The
tract is set aside permanently and is managed exclusively for approved
non-manipulative research; i.e., research that measures but does not
alter existing conditions. Resource use should be managed to prevent any
activity that could lessen the site\'s integrity or permit interference
with ongoing research projects. Consequently, camping, trail
construction (except to provide essential access), vegetation
management, range and pasture use, or mineral entry are not allowed. Any
potentially disruptive recreational pursuits should not be allowed in
these tracts because of the likelihood of negative effects on the
ongoing research activity.*

NPS *Management Policies 2006* further states: *RNAs contain prime
examples of natural resources and processes, including significant
genetic resources, that have value for long- term observational studies
or as control areas for manipulative research taking place outside the
parks......\... Activities in RNAs generally will be restricted to non-
manipulative research, education, and other activities that will not
detract from an area\'s research values.* (4.3.1)

During the GMP process several areas in the park were identified and
analyzed as potential RNAs. The RNAs were selected to represent and
include important physical processes, biological species and
communities, and cultural resources within landscapes of applicable size
to allow them to be affected by natural forces. Landscape units were
selected that contain outstanding examples of several ecological units
and multiple resource attributes. Goose Creek Canyon was identified
because it encompassed 5 ecological units (slot canyon, riparian fluvial
and aquatic, springs and seeps, hanging canyons, relict forests) and
contains prime Mexican spotted owl habitat.

The park closed RNAs to public recreational use in order to maintain the
integrity of these areas for research and to provide undisturbed
habitats that can be used for comparison purposes. There are other
canyons in the park that provide the canyoneering public with an
experience similar to that of hiking Goose Creek. For these reasons this
alternative will not be addressed further.

**Although not an alternative, one comment letter stated that an
environmental impact statement should be prepared for this planning
effort.** The first step the NPS takes in determining the Appropriate
NEPA Pathway (as described in Director's Order-12 -- *Conservation
Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis and Decision Making*) is to
complete an environmental screening form. The form asks resource
specialist to document any potential environmental impact of the
proposed action on their resource specialty. If there are not
significant impacts identified and if no significant impacts are
identified through external scoping, then it is appropriate to prepare
and environmental assessment. No significant impacts to human
environment were identified either through the environmental screening
form or through external scoping. So ZION determined that at this time
an EA is the appropriate NEPA pathway.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488631 .anchor}**Summary and Comparison of
Alternatives and Impacts**

This section of the document provides the following:

-   a comparison by alternative of the achievement of the goals for
    backcountry management (Table 16);

-   a comparison by alternative of the main actions proposed in this
    plan/EA (Table 17); and

-   a comparative summary of impacts by alternative (Table 18).

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table 16:                               
  Comparison of the                         
  Achievement of                            
  Goals by                                  
  Alternative**                             
  ------------------- --------------------- ------------------------------
  **Goal**            **Alternative A -- No **Alternative B -- Proposed
                      Action**              Action**

  Protect and         Partially meets the   Meets the goal by employing
  preserve the park's goal. But does not    the VERP process through which
  natural and         provide a mechanism   indicators and standards for
  cultural resources  to ensure protection  both resource protection and
  and values, and the of resources and      visitor experience were
  integrity of the    values in the long    identified. Along with a
  wilderness          term.                 monitoring program and
  character for                             management options to mitigate
  present and future                        effects if identified
  generations.                              threshold are met or exceeded.

  Provide for the     Partially meets the   Meets the goal by: (1)
  maximum freedom of  goal.                 adjusting visitor use numbers
  public use and                            to better match the capacity
  enjoyment of the                          of the backcountry area -- in
  park's backcountry                        some cases increasing visitor
  in a manner that is                       capacity; (2) continuing to
  consistent with                           allow cross-country travel and
  park purposes and                         at-large-camping in areas
  the protection of                         where natural and cultural
  park resources and                        resources are more resilient;
  values.                                   and (3) providing an array of
                                            backcountry opportunities
                                            (degree of solitude,
                                            challenge, and accessibility).

  Provide for public  Partially meets the   Meets the goal by providing
  understanding and   goal.                 backcountry/ wilderness
  support of                                education through: (1) the
  wilderness values.                        on-line permits and
                                            reservation system; (2)
                                            one-on-one visitor contact at
                                            the Visitor Center backcountry
                                            desk; and (3) visitor contact
                                            during backcountry patrols and
                                            resource and visitor
                                            experience monitoring as part
                                            of the VERP process.
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

+-------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+
| **    |                                   |                          |
| Table |                                   |                          |
| 17:   |                                   |                          |
| A     |                                   |                          |
| ltern |                                   |                          |
| ative |                                   |                          |
| Co    |                                   |                          |
| mpari |                                   |                          |
| son** |                                   |                          |
+=======+===================================+==========================+
| **Z   | **Alternative A**                 | **Alternative B**        |
| one** |                                   |                          |
|       | **No Action/Current Management**  | **Proposed               |
|       |                                   | Action/Preferred         |
|       |                                   | Alternative**            |
+-------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+
| **C   | ∙ alteration of the rock          | ∙ same as Alternative A, |
| ommon | prohibited; including scarring,   | with addition of         |
| to    | chiseling holds, gluing handholds | monitoring as described  |
| all   | or footholds onto existing rock & | in Table 14              |
| Zones | otherwise defacing natural rock   |                          |
| e     |                                   |                          |
| xcept | ∙ "clean-climbing" or minimum     |                          |
| RNA** | impact ethic encouraged; use of   |                          |
|       | pitons discouraged                |                          |
|       |                                   |                          |
|       | ∙ climbs temporarily or           |                          |
|       | permanently closed for threatened |                          |
|       | & endangered wildlife species     |                          |
|       | protection or other resource      |                          |
|       | issues -- closures kept to the    |                          |
|       | minimum to protect the identified |                          |
|       | resource                          |                          |
|       |                                   |                          |
|       | ∙ number of new climbs not        |                          |
|       | monitored or limited              |                          |
|       |                                   |                          |
|       | ∙ access to climbs on established |                          |
|       | & marked routes encouraged        |                          |
|       |                                   |                          |
|       | ∙ power drills prohibited &       |                          |
|       | excess bolting discouraged        |                          |
|       |                                   |                          |
|       | ∙ subdued colors for slings,      |                          |
|       | bolts, webbing, chalk, & other    |                          |
|       | paraphernalia encouraged          |                          |
|       |                                   |                          |
|       | ∙ overnight bivouacs on climbing  |                          |
|       | routes managed by backcountry     |                          |
|       | permit                            |                          |
|       |                                   |                          |
|       | ∙ overnight climbers must tube    |                          |
|       | waste & carry it out              |                          |
+-------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+
| **C   | ∙ aircraft or motorized equipment | ∙ same as Alternative A  |
| ommon | not allowed (except during        |                          |
| to    | emergency operations or           |                          |
| all   | absolutely critical for the       |                          |
| Zo    | protection of natural and         |                          |
| nes** | cultural resources as determined  |                          |
|       | on a case-by-case basis through a |                          |
|       | Minimum Requirement Analysis and  |                          |
|       | approved by the Superintendent)   |                          |
+-------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+
| **    | ∙ day and overnight use           | ∙ same as Alternative A  |
| Prist |                                   |                          |
| ine** |                                   |                          |
+-------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+
|       | ∙ not expected to encounter other | ∙ not expected to        |
|       | groups                            | encounter more than      |
|       |                                   | 2-groups per day         |
|       | ∙ group size limited to 12 people |                          |
|       |                                   | ∙ not expect to          |
|       | ∙ canyons managed by backcountry  | encounter other groups   |
|       | permit & limited to12 people per  | larger than 6 people     |
|       | day per canyon                    |                          |
|       |                                   | ∙ group size limit of 6  |
|       | ∙ day use in areas other than     | for technical canyons    |
|       | canyons, group size & numbers of  |                          |
|       | groups not currently limited      | ∙ group size limit of 12 |
|       | through a permit system           | elsewhere in zone -      |
|       |                                   | encounters monitored &   |
|       | ∙ day use could be limited by     | if encounters with       |
|       | permit system if use regularly    | larger groups occur,     |
|       | exceeds 12 people per day per     | group size limit would   |
|       | route                             | be reduced               |
|       |                                   |                          |
|       |                                   | ∙ use limits based on    |
|       |                                   | VERP indicators &        |
|       |                                   | standards (Table 15)     |
+-------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+
|       | ∙ overnight camping managed by    | ∙ same as Alternative A  |
|       | backcountry permit                |                          |
|       |                                   |                          |
|       | ∙ limited to 12 people per day    |                          |
|       | per area                          |                          |
+-------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+
|       | ∙ stock use prohibited            | ∙ same as Alternative A  |
+-------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+
|       | ∙ non-designated routes & paths,  | ∙ same as Alternative A, |
|       | no designated trails              | with addition of         |
|       |                                   | monitoring as described  |
|       | ∙ existing routes reflect the     | in Table 14              |
|       | character of wilderness & managed |                          |
|       | to maintain wilderness resource   |                          |
|       |                                   |                          |
|       | ∙ maintenance &/or construction   |                          |
|       | of trails allowed as needed for   |                          |
|       | resource protection               |                          |
|       |                                   |                          |
|       | ∙ routes & paths could be defined |                          |
|       | & maintained if necessary to      |                          |
|       | prevent resource damage           |                          |
+-------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+
|       | ∙ directional & location signs    | ∙ same as Alternative A  |
|       | with or without mileages          |                          |
|       | generally not present             |                          |
|       |                                   |                          |
|       | ∙ directional signs could be      |                          |
|       | necessary to reduce incidents of  |                          |
|       | visitor injury or rescue or to    |                          |
|       | promote resource protection       |                          |
+-------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+
|       | ∙ at-large camping throughout the | ∙ same as Alternative A, |
|       | zone; in some areas campsites     | with addition of         |
|       | designated to protect resources   | monitoring as described  |
|       |                                   | in Table 14              |
+-------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+
|       | ∙ commercial use prohibited       | ∙ same as Alternative A  |
+-------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+
|       | ∙ all fire management units &     | ∙ same as Alternative A  |
|       | strategies with mitigation;       |                          |
|       | Minimum Requirement Analysis      |                          |
|       | &minimum impact suppression       |                          |
|       | techniques                        |                          |
+-------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+
| **P   | ∙ day and overnight use           | ∙ same as Alternative A  |
| rimit |                                   |                          |
| ive** |                                   |                          |
+-------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+
|       | ∙ group size limit of 12 people   | ∙ group size limit of 12 |
|       |                                   | people                   |
|       | ∙ canyons managed by backcountry  |                          |
|       | permit; limited to 50 people per  | ∙ use in some canyons    |
|       | day per canyon                    | increased from 50 to 80  |
|       |                                   | (Subway & Keyhole);      |
|       | ∙ Narrows limited to 80 people    | permit required          |
|       | per day for through hikes &       |                          |
|       | managed by backcountry permit     | ∙ Narrows for through    |
|       |                                   | hikes decreased from 80  |
|       | ∙ technical rock climbing group   | people per day to 40     |
|       | size limited to 12 people; the    | people per day; permit   |
|       | numbers of groups not limited     | required                 |
|       |                                   |                          |
|       | ∙ expect to encounter no more     | ∙ technical rock         |
|       | than 12 groups per day            | climbing group size of   |
|       |                                   | 12 people; the numbers   |
|       | ∙ day use areas other than        | of groups not limited    |
|       | canyons that require a permit,    |                          |
|       | visitor use could be limited by   | ∙ not expected to        |
|       | permit system if use regularly    | encounter more than 10   |
|       | exceeds 50 people per day per     | other groups per day     |
|       | trail                             | (Table 15)               |
|       |                                   |                          |
|       |                                   | ∙ use limits would be    |
|       |                                   | based on VERP indicators |
|       |                                   | & standards (Table 15)   |
+-------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+
|       | ∙ stock group size limited to 6   | ∙ same as Alternative A  |
|       | animals & 6 people per day        |                          |
|       |                                   |                          |
|       | ∙ stock parties encounter no more |                          |
|       | than one other stock party in a   |                          |
|       | single day                        |                          |
+-------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+
|       | ∙ trails designated and           | ∙ same as Alternative A, |
|       | maintained                        | with addition of         |
|       |                                   | monitoring outlined in   |
|       | ∙ existing trails & routes        | Table 14                 |
|       | reflect the character of          |                          |
|       | wilderness & managed to maintain  |                          |
|       | wilderness resource               |                          |
|       |                                   |                          |
|       | ∙ routes & paths could be defined |                          |
|       | & maintained if necessary to      |                          |
|       | prevent resource damage           |                          |
+-------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+
|       | ∙ directional & location signs    | ∙ same as Alternative A  |
|       | with or without mileages present  |                          |
|       | on all maintained trails          |                          |
|       |                                   |                          |
|       | ∙ directional signs could be      |                          |
|       | present along heavily used routes |                          |
|       | if necessary to ensure visitor    |                          |
|       | safety or resource protection     |                          |
+-------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+
|       | ∙ most camping sites designated & | ∙ same as Alternative A  |
|       | all camping managed by            | -- except:               |
|       | backcountry permit                |                          |
|       |                                   | ∙ Coalpits/Chinle: 72    |
|       | ∙ Narrows: 72 people per night;   | people per night in 6    |
|       | 12 designated campsites           | designated sites         |
|       |                                   |                          |
|       | ∙ LaVerkin Creek: 90 people per   | ∙ areas open to at-large |
|       | night; 17 designated campsites    | camping: East Rim, Lower |
|       |                                   | Right Fork, & Wildcat    |
|       | ∙ Hop Valley: 26 people per       | Canyon Trail limited to  |
|       | night; 3 designated campsites     | 50 people per night per  |
|       |                                   | area                     |
|       | ∙ West Rim: 56 people per night;  |                          |
|       | 9 designated campsites            | ∙ areas open to at-large |
|       |                                   | camping may be converted |
|       | ∙ areas open to at-large camping: | to designated campsite   |
|       | East Rim, Lower Right Fork, &     | to protect resources --  |
|       | Wildcat Canyon Trail limited to   | dependent on VERP        |
|       | 50 people per night -- Southwest  | standards (Table 14)     |
|       | desert limited to 30 people per   |                          |
|       | night                             |                          |
|       |                                   |                          |
|       | ∙ areas open to at-large camping  |                          |
|       | could be converted to designated  |                          |
|       | campsite to protect resources     |                          |
+-------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+
|       | ∙ stock limited to horses, mules, | ∙ same as Alternative A  |
|       | & burros                          |                          |
|       |                                   |                          |
|       | ∙ stock must be fed certified     |                          |
|       | weed-free feed 24 hours prior to  |                          |
|       | entering the park and while in    |                          |
|       | the park                          |                          |
|       |                                   |                          |
|       | ∙ trails closed to stock use      |                          |
|       | during wet weather or due to      |                          |
|       | other resources concerns          |                          |
|       |                                   |                          |
|       | ∙ stock use allowed on the        |                          |
|       | following designated trails:      |                          |
|       | Chinle Trail to Coalpits Wash,    |                          |
|       | West Rim Trail from Lava Point to |                          |
|       | Cabin Springs & Telephone Canyon  |                          |
|       | Trail, Wildcat Canyon Trail &     |                          |
|       | Northgate Peaks Trail, Connecter  |                          |
|       | Trail, Hop Valley Trail, LaVerkin |                          |
|       | Creek Trail from Lee Pass to      |                          |
|       | junction with Beartrap Canyon     |                          |
|       | (not allowed upstream from        |                          |
|       | Beartrap Canyon and not allowed   |                          |
|       | to Kolob Arch), East Mesa Trail   |                          |
|       | from east park boundary to        |                          |
|       | junction with Observation Point   |                          |
|       | Trail (not allowed out to         |                          |
|       | Observation Point), East Rim      |                          |
|       | Trail from East Entrance and east |                          |
|       | park boundary to Cable & Deer     |                          |
|       | Trap Mountains                    |                          |
|       |                                   |                          |
|       | ∙ off-trail use in lower Coalpits |                          |
|       | Wash from the trailhead to the    |                          |
|       | junction with Scoggins Wash,      |                          |
|       | Scoggins Wash itself & the Stock  |                          |
|       | Trail, & Huber Wash where the     |                          |
|       | surrounding terrain confines use  |                          |
|       | to the wash bottom                |                          |
|       |                                   |                          |
|       | ∙ overnight camping with stock    |                          |
|       | allowed at one designated         |                          |
|       | campsite in Hop Valley; limited   |                          |
|       | to one night stay                 |                          |
+-------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+
|       | ∙ commercial use prohibited       | ∙ same as Alternative A  |
+-------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+
|       | ∙ all fire management units &     | ∙ same as Alternative A  |
|       | strategies with mitigation;       |                          |
|       | Minimum Requirement Analysis &    |                          |
|       | minimum impact suppression        |                          |
|       | techniques                        |                          |
+-------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+
| **Tr  | ∙ day use only                    | ∙ same as Alternative A  |
| ansit |                                   |                          |
| ion** |                                   |                          |
+-------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+
|       | ∙ day hiker group size or numbers | ∙ same as Alternative A, |
|       | of hikers per day not limited by  | with addition of         |
|       | permit                            | monitoring outlined in   |
|       |                                   | Table 14                 |
+-------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+
|       | ∙ Observation Point Trail, Timber | ∙ same as Alternative A  |
|       | Creek Trail, and the lower        |                          |
|       | Narrows from Orderville Canyon    |                          |
|       | south to Mystery Canyon managed   |                          |
|       | as special transition zones since |                          |
|       | they lie within recommended       |                          |
|       | wilderness; maintained to meet    |                          |
|       | wilderness requirements but allow |                          |
|       | higher use levels than the        |                          |
|       | majority of the recommended       |                          |
|       | wilderness                        |                          |
+-------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+
|       | ∙ trails designated & maintained  | ∙ same as Alternative A  |
|       |                                   |                          |
|       | ∙ trails signed                   |                          |
+-------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+
|       | ∙ backcountry camping prohibited  | ∙ same as Alternative A  |
+-------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+
|       | ∙ commercial use prohibited       | ∙ limited commercial     |
|       |                                   | interpretive guiding     |
|       |                                   | allowed on specified     |
|       |                                   | trails: Observation      |
|       |                                   | Point Trail, lower       |
|       |                                   | Narrows from Mystery     |
|       |                                   | Falls upstream to        |
|       |                                   | Orderville Canyon, &     |
|       |                                   | Timber Creek Overlook    |
|       |                                   | Trail                    |
+-------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+
|       | ∙ Suppression & Conditional fire  | ∙ same as Alternative A  |
|       | management units & all fire       |                          |
|       | management strategies with        |                          |
|       | mitigation; Minimum Requirement   |                          |
|       | Analysis & minimum impact         |                          |
|       | suppression techniques            |                          |
+-------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+
| **    | ∙ closed to recreational use      | ∙ same as Alternative A  |
| Resea |                                   | -- except:               |
| rch** | ∙ limited to research & some      |                          |
|       | educational trips by permit       | ∙ group size 6 people    |
| *     |                                   | per day, unless a larger |
| *Natu | ∙ group size 12 people per day    | group size is critical   |
| ral** |                                   | for protection of        |
|       | ∙ trails not designated or        | natural or cultural      |
| **A   | maintained                        | resources; to be         |
| rea** |                                   | determined on            |
|       | ∙ routes generally not            | case-by-case basis       |
|       | discernable                       | through a Minimum        |
|       |                                   | Requirement Analysis &   |
|       | ∙ signs or cairns not allowed     | approved by the          |
|       |                                   | Superintendent           |
|       | ∙ campsites not designated        |                          |
|       |                                   |                          |
|       | ∙ stock use prohibited            |                          |
|       |                                   |                          |
|       | ∙ commercial use prohibited       |                          |
+-------+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+

+-------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
| **Table 18: |                           |                           |
| Comparative |                           |                           |
| Summary of  |                           |                           |
| Impacts by  |                           |                           |
| Al          |                           |                           |
| ternative** |                           |                           |
+=============+===========================+===========================+
| **Impact    | **Alternative A -- No     | **Alternative B --        |
| Topic**     | Action**                  | Proposed Action**         |
+-------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
| Wilderness  | Impacts to wilderness     | Same as Alternative A     |
|             | character and visitor's   |                           |
|             | wilderness experience     |                           |
|             | would be direct,          |                           |
|             | negligible to minor,      |                           |
|             | adverse, & short-term.    |                           |
|             | Impacts could be          |                           |
|             | beneficial for some       |                           |
|             | visitors.                 |                           |
+-------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
| Visitor Use | Impacts would be direct,  | Impacts would be direct,  |
| and         | minor to moderate,        | beneficial, moderate &    |
| Experience  | beneficial, & long-term.  | long-term for most        |
|             | Although for some,        | visitors. Although for    |
|             | impacts would be direct,  | some, impacts would be    |
|             | adverse, minor, &         | direct, adverse, minor, & |
|             | short-term.               | short-term.               |
+-------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
| Threatened, | Threatened or Endangered  | Same as Alternative A     |
| Endangered, | Animals: impact would be  |                           |
| Sensitive   | direct, adverse,          |                           |
| Animal      | negligible to minor, &    |                           |
| Species     | short-term.               |                           |
|             |                           |                           |
|             | **Effects                 |                           |
|             | Determinations:**         |                           |
|             |                           |                           |
|             | **-Mexican Spotted Owl &  |                           |
|             | Critical Habitat: may     |                           |
|             | affect, but is not likely |                           |
|             | to adversely affect.**    |                           |
|             |                           |                           |
|             | **-Bald Eagle: no         |                           |
|             | effect.**                 |                           |
|             |                           |                           |
|             | **-California Condor: may |                           |
|             | affect, but is not likely |                           |
|             | to adversely affect.**    |                           |
|             |                           |                           |
|             | **-Western yellow-billed  |                           |
|             | cuckoo: no effect.**      |                           |
|             |                           |                           |
|             | **-Southwestern Willow    |                           |
|             | Flycatcher: no effect.**  |                           |
|             |                           |                           |
|             | **-Desert Tortoise: no    |                           |
|             | effect.**                 |                           |
|             |                           |                           |
|             | **-Virgin River Chub: no  |                           |
|             | effect.**                 |                           |
|             |                           |                           |
|             | **-Woundfin: no effect.** |                           |
|             |                           |                           |
|             | Sensitive Animal Species: |                           |
|             | impact would be direct,   |                           |
|             | adverse, minor to         |                           |
|             | moderate, & short-term.   |                           |
+-------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
| Threatened, | Shivwits Milkvetch &      | Shivwits Milkvetch &      |
| Endangered, | Critical Habitat: direct, | Critical Habitat: direct, |
| Sensitive   | negligible to minor,      | negligible, short-term,   |
| Plant       | short-term, & localized   | &localized adverse        |
| Species     | adverse impact.           | impact.                   |
|             |                           |                           |
|             | **Effects                 | **Effects                 |
|             | Determinations:**         | Determinations:**         |
|             |                           |                           |
|             | **-Shivwits Milkvetch &   | **-Shivwits Milkvetch &   |
|             | Critical Habitat: may     | Critical Habitat: no      |
|             | affect, but is not likely | effect.**                 |
|             | to adversely affect.**    |                           |
|             |                           | **-Holmgren Milkvetch: no |
|             | **-Holmgren Milkvetch: no | effect.**                 |
|             | effect.**                 |                           |
|             |                           | **-Dwarf Bear-poppy: no   |
|             | **-Dwarf Bear-poppy: no   | effect.**                 |
|             | effect.**                 |                           |
|             |                           | **-Slier Pincushion       |
|             | **-Slier Pincushion       | Cactus: no effect.**      |
|             | Cactus: no effect.**      |                           |
|             |                           | Sensitive Plant Species:  |
|             | Sensitive Plant Species:  | impacts would be adverse, |
|             | impacts would be adverse, | direct, negligible &      |
|             | direct, minor to          | short-term.               |
|             | moderate, & short-term.   |                           |
+-------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
| Vegetation  | Impacts would be direct,  | Impacts would be direct,  |
|             | moderate, & could         | minor, & would likely be  |
|             | potentially be long-term  | short-term due to         |
|             | depending on the type of  | monitoring & identified   |
|             | vegetation community      | mitigation.               |
|             | affected.                 |                           |
+-------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
| Soils       | Impacts would be adverse, | Same as Alternative A     |
|             | direct, minor to          |                           |
|             | moderate, & long-term.    |                           |
+-------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
| Floodplains | Impacts would be direct,  | Same as Alternative A     |
|             | adverse, negligible, &    |                           |
|             | short-term.               |                           |
+-------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488632 .anchor}**Environmentally Preferred
Alternative**

As stated in Section 2.7 D of Director's Order-12 and Handbook, the
environmentally preferred alternative is the alternative that will
promote the national environmental policy expressed in the National
Environmental Policy Act \[Sec. 101 (b)\]. This includes alternatives
that:

-   Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the
    environment for succeeding generations.

-   Ensure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and
    esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings.

-   Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment
    without degradation, risk of health or safety, or other undesirable
    and unintended consequences.

-   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.

-   Achieve a balance between population and resource use that will
    permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's
    amenities.

-   Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum
    attainable recycling of depletable resources.

Simply put, *this means the alternative that causes the least damage to
the biological and physical environment; it also means the alternative
which best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and
natural resources* (Question 6a in Council on Environmental Quality
1981). In the NPS, the No Action Alternative may also be considered in
identifying the environmentally preferred alternative.

Alternative A represents current backcountry management as described in
the 2001 GMP, which continues existing management and use levels until a
backcountry management plan is completed. The GMP also identified the
need to apply the visitor carrying capacity concept before backcountry
management decisions were made. Alternative A does not provide for an
ongoing monitoring program to assess the affects of visitor use on park
resources or to assess the quality of visitor's backcountry experience.

Alternative B, the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative, would guide
the NPS in providing opportunities for a variety of backcountry
recreational activities and experiences while recognizing and protecting
the wilderness resource values of ZION's backcountry. Backcountry
visitor use management decisions would be based on standards developed
through the NPS VERP process. The Preferred Alternative as compared to
the No Action Alternative would:

-   Improve visitor experience and resource protection through the
    employment of the VERP process. This includes the identification of
    indicators and standards for both resource protection and visitor
    experience, along with a monitoring program and management options
    designed to mitigate effects if identified threshold are met or
    exceeded.

-   Provide an array of backcountry opportunities (with different
    degrees of solitude, challenge and accessibility) while protecting
    resources for future generations.

-   Achieve a balance between visitor wants and resource protection
    through the implementation of VERP monitoring. Carrying capacity
    adjustments can be made to protect either the visitor experience or
    to protect resources when monitoring shows a need.

Therefore, Alternative B, the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative,
would also be the environmentally preferred alternative.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488633 .anchor}**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT and
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488634 .anchor}**Introduction**

In this environmental assessment the *Affect Environment* and
*Environmental Consequences* sections are combined. The *Affected
Environment* describes the area and resources that could have potential
impacts from implementation of either of the alternatives. The
*Environmental Consequences* describe the direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts to those resources from the actions proposed in the
alternatives. The *Environmental Consequences* also analyzes any
impairment to park resources.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488635 .anchor}**Methodology for Assessing
Impacts**

Topics analyzed in this chapter include: wilderness; visitor use and
experience; threatened, endangered, and sensitive animal species;
threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant species; vegetation; soils;
and floodplains.

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, as well as impairment are
analyzed for each resource topic carried forward. Potential impacts are
described in terms of type, context, duration, and intensity. General
definitions are as follows, while more specific impact thresholds are
given for each resource topic.

-   **Type** describes the classification of the impact as either
    beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect:

    -   Beneficial: A positive change in the condition or appearance of
        the resource or a change that moves the resource towards a
        desired condition.

    -   Adverse: A change that moves the resources away from a desired
        condition or detracts from its appearance or condition.

    -   Direct: An effect that is caused by an action and occurs in the
        same time and place. **All impacts identified in this document
        are "direct" unless otherwise stated.**

    -   Indirect: An effect that is caused by an action but is later in
        time and farther removed in distance, but is still reasonably
        foreseeable.

-   **Context** describes the area or location in which the impact will
    occur. Are the effects site-specific, local, regional, or even
    broader?

-   **Duration** describes the length of time an effect will occur,
    either short-term or long-term. Because definitions of duration can
    differ by resource topic, definitions are provided separately for
    each impact topic.

-   **Intensity** describes the degree, level, or strength of an impact.
    For this analysis, intensity has been categorized into negligible,
    minor, moderate, and major. Because definitions of intensity vary by
    resource topic, intensity definitions are provided separately for
    each impact topic.

[]{.mark}

**Cumulative Effects**

Cumulative effects are also considered in this analysis. A cumulative
effect is described in the CEQ regulations (1508.7) 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 action.* Cumulative impacts can result from
individually minor but collectively major actions taking place over a
period of time.

Cumulative impacts were addressed by considering the effects of the
alternative, combined with the effects of the following past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable future actions that were identified in and
around the study area. The following actions were identified through
internal and external scoping and are considered potential cumulative
actions:

**Fire management activities --** Fire management activities fall into
one of two categories: planned/prescribed fire or wildland fire. The
5-Year Fuels Treatment Plan (Appendix C in the 2005 FMP) outlines
proposed treatments (prescribed fire, mechanical treatments, and
herbicide treatments) from 2005 through 2009. All of the treatments
proposed may not be completed. The Minimum Requirement Analysis process
would be required for any treatment proposing the use of power tools or
aerial support. For the purposes of the cumulative analysis for this EA,
it is assumed that the following planned/prescribed activities would
occur:

-   2005 -- Prescribed fire on 420 acres.

-   2006 -- Prescribed fire on 2,210 acres.

-   2007 -- Prescribed fire on up to 10,000 acres; mechanical treatments
    along the park boundary and around cultural sites on up to 150
    acres; herbicide spot treatments targeting exotics in previously
    burned areas on up to 30 acres.

-   2008 -- Prescribed fire on up to 4,000 acres; mechanical treatments
    along the park boundary and around cultural sites on up to 20 acres;
    herbicide spot treatments targeting exotics in previously burned
    areas on up to 30 acres.

-   2009 -- Prescribed fire on up to 10,000 acres; mechanical treatments
    along the park boundary and around cultural sites on up to 20 acres;
    herbicide spot treatments targeting exotics in previously burned
    areas on up to 30 acres.

In the past several years wildland fires in areas around and in ZION
have increased in frequency and intensity. In June 2006 ZION experienced
the largest wildland fire ever, burning over 10,000 acres in the park's
backcountry. From 1950 through 2002 just over 13,000 acres of the park
had burned by wildland fire. Of the 467 fires from 1950 through 2002
only 48 burned more than 5 acres.

It is assumed for the purposes of this EA that wildland fire would
continue to increase in frequency and intensity in ZION. And that in the
future ZION would have fires that burn acreage similar to the 2006 fire
season.

**Development on private lands bordering the park** -- Lands on the
boundary and near the park are being developed at an increasing rate.
Over 35 percent of the park is bordered by private lands. Historically,
these lands have been used largely for agricultural purposes. However,
these lands are being developed to accommodate the demand for rural,
primary and secondary homes. This development pattern is most prevalent
along the east and southwest boundaries of ZION.

Between 1990 and 2000 Utah's population grew by almost 30 percent,
ranking it 4^th^ (by percentage of growth) in the United States.
Washington County, with an estimated population of 90,354 (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2000) has experienced tremendous growth, expanding by more than
42,000 people (nearly 86 percent) between 1990 and 2000 (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2000). Kane County has an estimated population of 6,046 (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2000) and has experienced a 17 percent increase in
population from 1990 to 2000. Iron County has a population estimate of
34,400 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000) and experienced a population growth of
62 percent between 1990 and 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).

For the purposes of the cumulative analysis for this EA, it is assumed
that the rate of development of open land near ZION to accommodate the
demand for primary and secondary homes would increase. This demand is
fueled by a steady increase in population, the proximity of ZION to
expanding urban areas (e.g., St. George), and a growing trend of rural
development in surrounding counties and adjacent states.

**Exotic plant monitoring and control** -- In the backcountry, park
staff conduct exotic plant monitoring each year. The monitoring assists
in early detection so that targeted plants can be eradicated before they
spread. In an average year, park staff would monitor and provide control
on over 700 acres in the backcountry. Methods of control included hand
tools, herbicides, and motorized tools (with approval through the
Minimum Requirement Analysis process). For the purposes of the
cumulative analysis for this EA, it is assumed that both monitoring and
control of exotic plants would continue at a rate of 700 acres per year.

**Impairment Analysis Method**

The NPS *Management Policies 2006* requires analysis of potential
effects to determine whether or not actions would impair park resources
or values.

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. NPS
managers must always seek ways to avoid, or to minimize to the greatest
degree practicable, actions that would adversely affect park resources
and values.

These laws give the NPS the management discretion to allow impacts to
park resources and values when necessary and appropriate to fulfill the
purposes of the park, as long as the impact does not constitute
impairment of the affected resources and values. Although Congress has
given the NPS the management discretion to allow certain impacts within
parks, that discretion is limited by statutory requirements that the NPS
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 NPS manager, would harm the integrity of
park resources or values, including the opportunities that otherwise
would be present for the enjoyment of those resources and values. An
impact to any park resource or value may constitute impairment.
Impairment may result from NPS management activities, visitor
activities, or activities undertaken by concessionaires, contractors,
and others operating in the park. An impact would be more likely to
constitute impairment to the extent that it has a major severe adverse
effect upon 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 to
    opportunities for enjoyment of the park; or

-   identified as a goal in the park's general management plan or other
    relevant NPS planning documents.

A determination on impairment is made for each of the resource topics
carried forward in this Chapter.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488636 .anchor}**Wilderness**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488637 .anchor}**Affected Environment**

In 1974, approximately 131,000 acres of ZION were recommended to
Congress for formal wilderness designation (Map C). This includes
potential wilderness (inholdings, private water diversions) as well as
recommended wilderness. While not yet legislatively designated, this
recommended wilderness is managed as wilderness in accordance with NPS
*Management Polices 2006*.

The 1964 Wilderness Act defined wilderness as: *an area where the earth
and its community of life are untrammeled by man.* In addition, the act
states that ...*except as necessary to meet the minimum requirements for
the administration of the area for the purposes of this act, there shall
be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or
motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical
transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.*

The GMP completed in 2001 stated the following desired condition: *All
of the lands within recommended wilderness areas retain their wilderness
characteristics and values. Visitors continue to find opportunities for
solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation. Signs of people remain
substantially unnoticeable. The area continues to be affected primarily
by the forces of nature*.

In this environmental assessment, wilderness includes both the
biophysical resources of wilderness as well as wilderness character,
which can be thought of as the human experience of wilderness. Two
commonly used terms to describe wilderness resources and character are
naturalness and wildness. While the two terms are similar, they each
describe a different value of wilderness. Naturalness encompasses the
ecosystem components and processes that belong in the wilderness, such
as native plant communities and native wildlife species. Wildness
encompasses the lack of direct human control, such as vast road less
landscapes and free-flowing rivers.

All activities affecting wilderness must be considered under the Minimum
Requirement Analysis concept (Appendix B). This concept is a documented
process used to determine if administrative activities affecting
wilderness resources or the visitor experience are necessary and how to
minimize impacts.

  --------------- -------------------------------------------------------------
  **Wilderness    
  Impact          
  Threshold       
  Definitions**   

  Negligible      A change in the wilderness character could occur, but it
                  would be so small that it would not be of any measurable or
                  perceptible consequence.

  Minor           A change in the wilderness character and associated values
                  would occur, but it would be small and, if measurable, would
                  be highly localized.

  Moderate        A change in the wilderness character and associated values
                  would occur. It would be measurable but localized.

  Major           A noticeable change in the wilderness character and
                  associated values would occur. It would be measurable and
                  would have a substantial or possibly permanent consequence.

  Duration        Short-term -- lasting the duration of the activity and/or
                  disturbance

                  Long-term -- lasting beyond the duration of the activity
                  and/or disturbance

  Area of         The area of analysis is referred to as the "study area" and
  Analysis        includes recommended wilderness, and portions of the Pristine
                  and Primitive Zones that fall outside of recommended
                  wilderness.
  --------------- -------------------------------------------------------------

**Effects Common to Both Alternatives**

Both alternatives share several management strategies, and would
therefore have similar impacts. Consistent with current backcountry
management, both alternatives limit access to the majority of the study
area through a permit system, prohibit commercial use in Pristine and
Primitive Zones, provide for a range of camping opportunities from
designated sites to open at-large areas, manage trails and routes
according to their zone, and prohibit aircraft and machine access. The
new impact to most visitors from continued implementation of these
policies would be negligible.

A limited amount of recommended wilderness lies within the Transition
Zone, which includes several areas with high visitor use. These areas
would be managed as "special transition zones" similarly to other
recommended wilderness areas with the exception that these areas would
allow higher visitation use. The resources would be managed to maintain
the wilderness characteristics (e.g., minimal trail maintenance,
signage) but allow high numbers of visitors until a determination on
wilderness designation was made. This management is consistent with past
management, and no new net affect would occur.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488638 .anchor}**Effects of Alternative A -- No
Actio**n

For the purposes of this analysis, impacts are reviewed in terms of
wilderness character and wilderness experience. Wilderness character,
described as the extent of naturalness and wildness, is the absence of
permanent human structures, including buildings, roads, bridges, dams,
and the perpetuation of natural ecological relationships and processes.
Wilderness experience is defined as opportunities for solitude and
opportunities to experience primitive, unconfined recreation.
Opportunities for solitude are measured by number of group encounters.
Opportunities for experiencing primitive, unconfined recreation refer to
a visitor's ability to participate in activities such as hiking,
canyoneering, rock climbing, primitive camping, and nature observation
that "relate intimately to the splendor of the wilderness resource" and
do not require permanent improvements or facilities. Generally, these
activities are considered unconfined in the sense that the experience
offers freedom of choice for such aspects of movement, routes, and
camping once the visitor has entered the backcountry. Wilderness
character and wilderness experience are integrally related because much
of the wilderness character can only be subjectively determined by
visitor's experience (e.g., solitude, natural soundscapes, freedom of
movement).

Under Alternative A, permanent markings or structures and the presence
of man would be minimal. Directional and location signs would generally
not be present in the Pristine Zone unless they were necessary for
visitor safety or resource protection. In addition, they would only be
present in the Primitive Zone along heavily used routes and designated
trails.

Alternative A offers an array of opportunities for visitors to
experience solitude within the backcountry of ZION. The experience of
solitude varies by individual; in general the number of groups
encountered along a trail or route impact an individuals feeling of
solitude. In the Pristine Zone (119,446 acres) it is anticipated that no
groups (zero) would be encountered, in the Primitive Zone (16,480 acres)
it is anticipated that no more than 12 groups would be encountered, and
in the Transition Zone within recommended wilderness there would be no
limit to the number of groups encountered. The visitor experience
surveys conducted in 2002 and 2003 found that these encounter rates are
acceptable to most backcountry visitors. Therefore, impacts to the
experience of solitude by visitors in the backcountry from
implementation of Alternative A would be beneficial, minor, and
short-term.

Under Alternative A, there would continue to be opportunities for
visitors to experience primitive, unconfined recreation in the
backcountry of ZION. Again, each individual's view of this type of
experience varies. For some people the mere requirement to obtain a
permit limits their ability for primitive, unconfined recreation. Within
the Primitive Zone (16,480 acres) most campsites are designated, trails
are designated, there are group size limits, and permits must be
obtained for all overnight and some day use activities. These
requirements may have a short-term, adverse, and minor impact on some
visitor's experience. Other visitors may see these requirements as
beneficial, because their expectations of primitive, unconfined
recreation are different.

Within the Pristine Zone (119,446 acres) visitors can choose where they
camp (subject to regulations) and can travel cross-country; although
there are group size limits and a permit is required for some day use
activities and all overnight use. These opportunities would have a
short-term, beneficial, and minor impact on visitor's ability to
experience primitive, unconfined recreation.

In general, any management activities (e.g., trail maintenance,
research) that are proposed within recommended wilderness in ZION must
go through the Minimum Requirement Analysis (Appendix B) to determine if
the activity is appropriate and to determine the minimum tool necessary
to perform the activity. This process also takes into account effects on
visitor's experience. Therefore, impacts to wilderness character and
visitor's wilderness experience from management activities would be
expected to be short-term, adverse or beneficial, and negligible to
minor depending on the activity and the mitigation identified.

**Cumulative Effects**

Cumulative impacts to wilderness character and visitor's wilderness
experience include actions from Alternative A with the addition of
impacts from fire management activities, development of private lands
along the park boundary, and from exotic plant monitoring and control.
These actions and activities would contribute to increased human
presence, landscape changes associated with management activities, and
temporary closures of some areas to wilderness travel because of fire
management activities.

There may be potential for a short-term loss of some opportunities for
solitude and primitive recreation during management activities. However,
a small percentage of the study area would likely be restricted at any
one time. The long-term impacts associated with fire and exotic plant
management would benefit wilderness character and experience through
maintaining the biological diversity and natural integrity of the study
area. Both fire management and exotic plant control methodologies were
specifically developed with mitigation practices to maintain wilderness
resources and values. All actions outside of regular wilderness
management would be reviewed through the Minimum Requirement Analysis.
Therefore, cumulative impacts would expect to be beneficial, minor to
moderate and both short- and long-term.

Overall, the largest cumulative impacts to wilderness character and
wilderness experience are associated with increased visitor use and
private development along the park boundary. The changes would occur
slowly, but would eventually have moderate, adverse long-term cumulative
effects. Increase use from visitors and residents would gradually
decrease opportunities for solitude and natural sounds. Private
development along the park boundary has the potential to increase
authorized and unauthorized day use. As use increases visitors could
experience more crowding and noise, and observe more resource impacts on
trails and routes or in areas where trails are not established. Future
carrying capacity studies may propose limits on use in some areas to
address the degradation if it occurred. As current use in the majority
of the study area is below the encounter rates, this alternative would
likely have a negligible cumulative effect on most backcountry users for
a long period of time. However, in popular areas and canyons where use
is already close to exceeding encounter limits, the adverse cumulative
impacts would have minor to moderate impacts over a shorter period of
time.

**Conclusion**

Implementation of Alternative A would continue to protect wilderness
character and provide a wilderness experience for backcountry visitors.
Generally, opportunities to experience solitude and participate in
primitive, unconfined recreation would continue at their current levels
for the majority of the study area. Some opportunities for solitude
would slowly decrease as visitation increases. In general, impacts under
this alternative would be negligible to minor, adverse, and short-term
for the majority of visitors. For some visitors management actions
outlined in Alternative A would allow for a beneficial wilderness
experience.

Cumulative impacts in general would be beneficial or adverse, negligible
to moderate, short- and long-term.

**Impairment Analysis**

Because there would be no major, adverse impacts to wilderness character
and experience whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific
purposes identified in the establishing legislation of the park; (2) key
to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or (3) identified as a
goal in the park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there
would be no impairment of the wilderness character or experience.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488639 .anchor}**Effects of Alternative B --
Proposed Action**

For the purposes of this analysis, impacts are reviewed in terms of
wilderness character and wilderness experience. Wilderness character,
described as the extent of naturalness and wildness, is the absence of
permanent human structures, including buildings, roads, bridges, dams,
and the perpetuation of natural ecological relationships and processes.
Wilderness experience is defined as opportunities for solitude and
opportunities to experience primitive, unconfined recreation.
Opportunities for solitude are measured by number of group encounters.
Opportunities for experiencing primitive, unconfined recreation refer to
a visitor's ability to participate in activities such as hiking,
canyoneering, rock climbing, primitive camping, and nature observation
that "relate intimately to the splendor of the wilderness resource" and
do not require permanent improvements or facilities. Generally, these
activities are considered unconfined in the sense that the experience
offers freedom of choice for such aspects of movement, routes, and
camping once the visitor has entered the backcountry. Wilderness
character and wilderness experience are integrally related because much
of the wilderness character can only be subjectively determined by
visitor's experience (e.g., solitude, natural soundscapes, freedom of
movement).

Under Alternative B, permanent markings or structures and the presence
of man would be minimal. Directional and location signs would generally
not be present in the Pristine Zone unless they were necessary for
visitor safety or resource protection. In addition, they would only be
present in the Primitive Zone along heavily used routes and designated
trails.

Through the application of the VERP process, this alternative would
identify indicators, standards, monitoring strategies, and management
options that would help preserve wilderness character and improve
visitor wilderness experience. As park visitation increases, these
indicators and standards would protect wilderness character and
experience by triggering management actions to disperse or limit the
density of visitors and encounters where wilderness resource values
could be jeopardized.

This alternative offers an array of opportunities for visitors to
experience solitude within the backcountry of ZION. The experience of
solitude varies by individual; in general the number of groups
encountered along a trail or route impact an individuals feeling of
solitude. In the Pristine Zone (119,446 acres) it is anticipated that no
more than 2 groups would be encountered, in the Primitive Zone (16,480
acres) it is anticipated that no more than 10 groups would be
encountered, and within the Transition Zone there would be no limit to
the number of groups encountered. The visitor experience surveys
conducted in 2002 and 2003 found that these encounter rates are
acceptable to most backcountry visitors. Therefore, impacts to the
experience of solitude by visitors in the backcountry from
implementation of encounter rates identified for Alternative B would be
beneficial, minor, and short-term.

Under Alternative B, there would continue to be opportunities for
visitors to experience primitive, unconfined recreation in the
backcountry of ZION. Again, each individual's view of this type of
experience varies. For some people the mere requirement to obtain a
permit limits their ability for primitive, unconfined recreation. Within
the Primitive Zone (16,480 acres) most campsites are designated, trails
are designated, there are group size limits, and permits must be
obtained for all overnight and some day use activities. These
requirements may have a short-term, adverse, and minor impact on some
visitor's experience. Other visitors may see these requirements as
beneficial, because their expectations of primitive, unconfined
recreation are different.

Within the Pristine Zone (119,446 acres) visitors can choose where they
camp (subject to regulations) and can travel cross-country; although
there are group size limits and a permit is required for some day use
activities and all overnight use. These opportunities would have a
short-term, beneficial, and minor impact on visitor's ability to
experience primitive, unconfined recreation.

In general, any management activities (e.g., trail maintenance,
research) that are proposed within recommended wilderness in ZION must
go through the Minimum Requirement Analysis (Appendix B) to determine if
the activity is appropriate and to determine the minimum tool necessary
to perform the activity. This process also takes into account effects on
visitor's experience. Therefore, impacts to wilderness character and
visitor's wilderness experience from management activities would be
expected to be short-term, adverse or beneficial, and negligible to
minor depending on the activity and the mitigation identified.

**Cumulative Effects**

Under Alternative B, cumulative impacts from fire management, private
development along the park boundary, and exotic plant control are
expected to be the same as Alternative A. Short-term losses of some
opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation during management
activities may occur. However, a small percentage of the study area
would likely be restricted at any one time. The long-term impacts
associated with fire and exotic plant management would benefit
wilderness character and experience through maintaining the biological
diversity and natural integrity of the study area.

As with Alternative A, the largest cumulative impacts to wilderness
character and experience are associated with increased visitor use and
private development along the park boundary contributing to a gradual
loss of solitude and natural sounds. The new encounter rates and
adjustments in group sizes and total visitors to canyon areas would have
a negligible effect on most backcountry users. In a few popular areas
and canyons, the encounter limits and group size reductions would help
to ensure that use levels do not increase substantially. Provisions
under Alternative B for monitoring and evaluating visitor satisfaction
and experience would provide for long-term, minor to moderate beneficial
cumulative impacts for the majority of visitors.

**Conclusion**

Beneficial changes to the wilderness experience would occur in some
locations, such as the reduction of group sizes in canyons. Alternative
B would establish indicators, standards, and monitoring protocols to
assess visitor impacts on both park resources and visitor experience.
The proposed standards for group encounters, campsite management, and
low levels of modern human presence should protect much of the
backcountry as visitation grows, but would generally still allow
increases in visitor use across most of the study area. While some
visitors may experience short-term, adverse, negligible to minor impacts
from area closures and lower group limits, other visitors may consider
those same limitations beneficial to their experience. The overall
result of Alternative B management for the wilderness characteristics of
solitude, quiet, and other wilderness values would be short-term, minor
to moderate beneficial impacts. As such the potential and recommended
wilderness in ZION would continue to be eligible for formal wilderness
designation by Congress.

Alternative B would establish VERP standards for desired visitor
experiences and resource protection. Together these policies should
produce short-term moderate beneficial impacts through better management
even though the reduction in group sizes may produce short-term adverse
impacts for some users. By reducing group sizes and raising the
encounter levels, this alternative would result in overall short-term,
negligible to minor beneficial impacts to visitor experience while
increasing resource protection.

Cumulative effects under Alternative B would be long-term, minor to
moderate, and beneficial for the majority of visitors.

**Impairment Analysis**

Because there would be no major, adverse impacts to wilderness character
and experience whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific
purposes identified in the establishing legislation of the park; (2) key
to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or (3) identified as a
goal in the park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there
would be no impairment of the wilderness character or experience.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488640 .anchor}**Visitor Use and Experience**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488641 .anchor}**Affected Environment**

In 2006, over 2.5 million people visited ZION (Table 19). Visitors
participate in a wide range of activities, including hiking,
canyoneering, rock climbing, attending ranger guided programs, and
nature observation. Zion Canyon attracts the majority of visitors; most
walk on at least one trail during their visit. Trails range from short,
easy walks from points along the Zion Canyon Scenic Drive to long,
strenuous hikes such as the East and West Rim Trails.

Visitors hike on over 90 miles of maintained trails, with the majority
of those trails in the backcountry. Visitor also hike cross-country,
often on well-used routes. There are over 90 miles of well-used routes
in the park, mainly through technical slot canyons (Map E).

Backcountry camping continues to be a popular activity in ZION, although
this use has leveled off since 2000. There are 41 designated backcountry
campsites (Map F) accommodating 244 people per night. In general, the
rest of the park is open to at-large camping by permit with some
limitations (e.g., total number of campers per area, distance from
trailhead).

Visitor use in ZION has changed over the years, especially for those
backcountry activities that require a permit. In 1998 backcountry
camping (with a permit) was more popular than day use activities that
required a permit. With the popularization of canyoneering, day use
requiring a permit has risen from 26 percent of the total permits
distributed to over 58 percent. While backcountry camping permits
decreased from 47 percent of the total permits distributed to 26 percent
(Table 19).

Overall, backcountry visitors seek varying degrees of solitude and
visitors enjoy natural sounds during most of their experiences. The
park's shuttle buses, which operate on the Zion Canyon Scenic Drive from
April through October, are propane powered and produce a minimum of
unnatural sound. Once a visitor ventures from traveled roadways,
unnatural sound diminish.

+---+------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| * |      |           |          |          |          |          |
| * |      |           |          |          |          |          |
| T |      |           |          |          |          |          |
| a |      |           |          |          |          |          |
| b |      |           |          |          |          |          |
| l |      |           |          |          |          |          |
| e |      |           |          |          |          |          |
| 1 |      |           |          |          |          |          |
| 9 |      |           |          |          |          |          |
| : |      |           |          |          |          |          |
| V |      |           |          |          |          |          |
| i |      |           |          |          |          |          |
| s |      |           |          |          |          |          |
| i |      |           |          |          |          |          |
| t |      |           |          |          |          |          |
| o |      |           |          |          |          |          |
| r |      |           |          |          |          |          |
| U |      |           |          |          |          |          |
| s |      |           |          |          |          |          |
| e |      |           |          |          |          |          |
| * |      |           |          |          |          |          |
| * |      |           |          |          |          |          |
+===+======+===========+==========+==========+==========+==========+
| * | **T  | **All     | **Narrow | **Narrow | **Bac    | **       |
| * | otal | Back      | Canyon   | Canyon   | kcountry | Climbing |
| Y | Park | country** | Day      | C        | C        | Bi       |
| e | Vi   |           | Use**    | amping** | amping** | vouacs** |
| a | sito | **        |          |          |          |          |
| r | rs** | (permits/ | **(p     | **(p     | **(p     | **(p     |
| * |      | people)** | ermits/p | ermits/p | ermits/p | ermits/p |
| * |      |           | eople)** | eople)** | eople)** | eople)** |
+---+------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| 2 | 2    | 7,677 /   | 4,461 /  | 898 /    | 2,062 /  | 198 /    |
| 0 | ,589 | 27,726    | 18,781   | 3,030    | 5,379    | 385      |
| 0 | ,250 |           |          |          |          |          |
| 6 |      |           |          |          |          |          |
+---+------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| 2 | 2    | 6,049 /   | 3,214 /  | 463 /    | 2,066 /  | 200 /    |
| 0 | ,608 | 20,712    | 13,365   | 1,452    | 5,285    | 375      |
| 0 | ,564 |           |          |          |          |          |
| 5 |      |           |          |          |          |          |
+---+------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| 2 | 2    | 7,292 /   | 4,142 /  | 952 /    | 1,944 /  | 241 /    |
| 0 | ,699 | 25,739    | 17,166   | 3,065    | 5,005    | 458      |
| 0 | ,241 |           |          |          |          |          |
| 4 |      |           |          |          |          |          |
+---+------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| 2 | 2    | 7,156 /   | 3,692 /  | 852 /    | 2,316 /  | 298 /    |
| 0 | ,480 | 24,944    | 16,204   | 2,608    | 5,549    | 583      |
| 0 | ,690 |           |          |          |          |          |
| 3 |      |           |          |          |          |          |
+---+------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| 2 | 2    | 7,801 /   | 3,812 /  | 1,091 /  | 2,505 /  | 392 /    |
| 0 | ,614 | 27,298    | 16,623   | 3,414    | 6,471    | 789      |
| 0 | ,734 |           |          |          |          |          |
| 2 |      |           |          |          |          |          |
+---+------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| 2 | 2    | 7,358 /   | 3,437 /  | 934 /    | 2,519 /  | 433 /    |
| 0 | ,249 | 25,999    | 15,641   | 3,046    | 6,351    | 881      |
| 0 | ,389 |           |          |          |          |          |
| 1 |      |           |          |          |          |          |
+---+------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| 2 | 2    | 6,947 /   | 2,910 /  | 1,051 /  | 2,618 /  | 371 /    |
| 0 | ,454 | 23,875    | 13,095   | 3,493    | 6,547    | 754      |
| 0 | ,248 |           |          |          |          |          |
| 0 |      |           |          |          |          |          |
+---+------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| 1 | 2    | 5,358 /   | 1,990    | 761 /    | 1,938 /  | 669 /    |
| 9 | ,471 | 16,835    | /8,392   | 2,482    | 4,608    | 1,353    |
| 9 | ,564 |           |          |          |          |          |
| 9 |      |           |          |          |          |          |
+---+------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| 1 | 2    | 3,950 /   | 1,039    | 471 /    | 1,874 /  | 566 /    |
| 9 | ,387 | 11,963    | /4,554   | 1,703    | 4,603    | 1,103    |
| 9 | ,714 |           |          |          |          |          |
| 8 |      |           |          |          |          |          |
+---+------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+

  --------------- -------------------------------------------------------------
  **Visitor Use   
  and Experience  
  Impact          
  Threshold       
  Definitions**   

  Negligible      Visitors would not be affected, or changes in visitor use
                  and/or experience would be below or at the level of
                  detection. The visitor would not likely be aware of the
                  effects associated with the alternative.

  Minor           Changes in visitor use and/or experience would be detectable,
                  although the changes would be slight. The visitor would be
                  aware of the effects associated with the alternative, but the
                  effects would be slight.

  Moderate        Changes in visitor use and/or experience would be readily
                  apparent. The visitor would be aware of the effects
                  associated with the alternative and would likely be able to
                  express an opinion about the changes.

  Major           Changes in visitor use and/or experience would be readily
                  apparent and would have important consequences. The visitor
                  would be aware of the effects associated with the alternative
                  and would likely express a strong opinion about the changes.

  Duration        Short-term -- lasting the duration of the activity and/or
                  disturbance

                  Long-term -- lasting beyond the duration of the activity
                  and/or disturbance

  Area of         The area of analysis is referred to as the "study area" and
  Analysis        includes recommended wilderness, and portions of the Pristine
                  and Primitive Zones that fall outside of recommended
                  wilderness.
  --------------- -------------------------------------------------------------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488642 .anchor}**Effects of Alternative A -- No
Action**

***Pristine Zone***

Under this alternative, visitors would generally not expect to encounter
other groups (zero encounter rate), and group size would continue to be
limited to 12 people. For most of the Pristine Zone, people would
continue to find opportunities for solitude and natural soundscapes.

Visitor use in the technical canyons would continue to be managed by
backcountry permit. Day use in areas other areas would not be limited
through a permit system unless the use regularly exceeds 12 people per
day per route. When these areas exceed this threshold, managers would
take action to protect visitor experience and reduce group limits, which
would help to mitigate the experience of crowding. However, as these
actions would be reactive rather than proactive; it's likely that the
quality of the experience of solitude and naturalness would diminish to
a detectable level before management action would be taken. This
transition period would have a short-term, minor to moderate, adverse
impact on visitors particularly during peak season and in popular areas.
Canyon users, due to the limited terrain and travel routes, are more
likely experience crowding if canyoneering continues to increase at
current rates. As such, it's likely they would experience short-term,
minor, adverse impacts.

Overnight camping would continue to be managed by backcountry permit,
and would largely be open to camping throughout the zone except where
campsites are designated to protect resources. Trails would not be
designated unless necessary for resource protection. For some visitors,
this freedom to choose where to travel, camp or climb is considered a
defining characteristic of a wilderness experience. This would be a
moderate, beneficial, short-term impact on those visitors who value less
restricted access, personal choice and a wild setting.

***Primitive Zone***

Under this alternative, group size would continue to be limited to 12
people and would be managed by permit in technical canyons. Canyon use
would be limited to 50 people per day per canyon. Visitor use in the
Narrows would be limited to 80 people per day for through hikes. The
effect of the use numbers would be negligible to minor to most visitors,
as these reflect current limits. However, if day use areas other than
canyons regularly exceed 50 people per day per trail and wilderness
values are diminished as a result, a permit system may be implemented
which could result in an adverse, short-term, minor impact as a result
of limited access. However, a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact
would occur as a result of the permit system, due to increased
protection of the wilderness experience in those areas.

Camping in the Primitive Zone would mostly be in designated sites and
managed by backcountry permit. Several areas would remain open to
at-large camping. In addition, the southwest desert would be limited to
30 people per night. Open at-large camping areas could be converted to
designated campsites to protect resources. The closure of these
unrestricted camping areas could have a short-term, minor, adverse
impact on backcountry users, as their option to camp at locations of
their choosing would be diminished. However, long-term, moderate,
beneficial effects could also result because only the designated
campsites would be disturbed, resulting in fewer impacts to both natural
and cultural resources.

Stock use would be limited to specific designated trails and routes. For
the majority of ZION visitors who are generally not stock users, the
resulting impacts would range from minor to moderate, short-term,
beneficial impacts, depending on personal visitor preferences regarding
stock use. Generally, stock use would be concentrated on the designated
trails and routes; cross-country travel would not be allowed. For stock
users, the limited access to the backcountry may have an adverse, minor,
short-term impact on their experience through limiting the areas they
are able to travel.

***Transition Zone***

The Transition Zone within recommended wilderness, which currently
experiences high levels of use, is not managed by day use limits. It is
expected that this use would increase over time potentially diminishing
visitor's experiences in these areas. It is also expected that with
increasing use and without any type of monitoring visitor created trails
would continue to increase. This would also potentially increase erosion
in the area which could have an adverse effect on natural resources,
which in turn could have an indirect, adverse, and minor impact on
visitor's experience in the short-term.

***Research Natural Area Zone***

Under this alternative, Research Natural Areas would continue to be
closed to general recreational visitor use. Therefore, there would be no
new effects of the implementation of Alternative A on visitor use and
experience within the Research Natural Area Zone.

**Cumulative Effects**

Implementation of the Fire Management Plan, development of private lands
along the boundary of the park, and the implementation of exotic plant
monitoring and control program would cumulatively have a short-term,
minor, adverse effect to visitor's experiences in the backcountry. All
of these actions would increase human presence and signs of human
activity in the backcountry, reducing the visual quality, experience of
solitude, and wilderness resources in the short-term, when these actions
were taking place. However, as the beneficial effects of noxious weed
management and fuels reduction efforts are realized, visitors would
experience long-term, moderate, beneficial cumulative impacts, due to
improved ecological conditions in these areas.

**Conclusion**

The continuation of current management would likely result in long-term,
minor to moderate beneficial impacts to visitors recreating in the study
area. Opportunities for experiencing solitude, quiet, and the feeling of
being immersed in pristine resources would be available throughout most
of the study area. However, some visitors would be inconvenienced under
this alternative if they did not receive a permit, or if they had to
change their destination or timing of their trip. This would result in
an adverse, minor, short-term impact to those visitors who valued
personal choice.

Cumulative impacts would be short-term, minor, and adverse because of
increased human presence, signs of human activity in the backcountry,
and potential reductions in solitude. Over the long-term, however, the
cumulative impact could be moderate and beneficial from improved
ecological conditions.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488643 .anchor}**Effects of Alternative B --
Proposed Action**

Alternative B follows the VERP framework as the basis of adaptive
management of visitor use and carrying capacity for ZION backcountry
resources. This alternative would include a monitoring program for
evaluating if and when management actions must be taken to keep visitor
experience and use within acceptable standards. In this alternative,
aspects of visitor use and experiences would be monitored during
backcountry patrols and through qualitative visitor surveys. Monitoring
activities may result in short-term, negligible to minor, adverse
impacts for some visitors who may object to being surveyed during their
experience in the park. However, as the results from the monitoring
activities would be used to make long-term management decisions, a
beneficial long-term effect to visitors would be gained from management
adjustments to maintain VERP standards.

***Pristine Zone***

Under Alternative B, visitors would not expect to encounter more than 2
groups per day, which is an increase in visitor encounters from
Alternative A. Group size in technical canyons would be reduced to 6
people per day; group size limits would remain at 12 elsewhere in the
zone. The reduction of group size in technical canyons would have a
short-term moderate beneficial impact on visitors who value solitude,
and the experience that it supports. Additionally, the group size would
reduce the perception of crowding, noise, and bottlenecks in technical
sections of the canyons.

For those visitors that receive a permit, reducing the group size to 6
would have a beneficial, short-term, negligible effect. Raising the
encounter rate to 2 would allow for more groups to enter the canyon
areas and reduce the negative impact of the lower group size limits. On
the other hand, visitors that were not able to receive a permit at their
preferred time would experience a negative effect by the restrictions.
An unknown number of visitors would be displaced to other less crowded
areas or areas without group size limits.

Overnight camping would continue to be managed by backcountry permit and
camping would be allowed throughout the zone. Trails would not be
designated unless necessary for resource protection. For some visitors,
this freedom to choose where to travel, camp or climb is considered a
defining characteristic of a wilderness experience. This would be a
moderate, beneficial, short-term impact on those visitors who value less
restricted access, personal choice and a wild setting.

***Primitive Zone***

The group size in this zone would be limited to 12 people, including
technical canyons and rock climbing. Visitor use numbers in the Keyhole
and Subway would be increased to 80 people per day, whereas visitor use
numbers in the Narrows for through hikes would be decreased to 40 people
per day. The overall effect would increase visitor access to a canyon
experience, while reducing crowding in the Narrows. For those visitors
who valued a specific canyon experience, this could have an adverse,
minor to moderate, short-term impact. While some visitors may find that
they are not able to get a permit for the trip of their choice or in the
season of their choice, the experience of solitude and remoteness would
be preserved for the visitors that did receive a permit. The experience
of crowding in technical canyons and delays at bottlenecks would be
reduced, and thereby these visitors would experience a short-term,
beneficial, minor to moderate impact through the reduction in visitor
numbers in highly popular areas. The overall impact of visitor limits
would be negligible to minor to the majority of ZION visitors.

Camping in the Primitive Zone would mostly be in designated sites and
managed by backcountry permit. In the southwest desert area additional
campsites would be designated and the area would be closed to at-large
camping. Other areas in the zone would remain open to at-large camping.
The closure of unrestricted camping areas could have a short-term,
minor, adverse impact on backcountry users, as their option to camp at
locations of their choosing would be diminished. However, long-term,
moderate, beneficial effects could also result because only the
designated campsites would be disturbed, resulting in fewer impacts to
both natural and cultural resources.

Stock use would be limited to specific designated trails and routes. For
the majority of ZION visitors who are generally not stock users, the
resulting impacts would range from short-term minor to moderate
beneficial impacts, depending on personal visitor preferences regarding
stock use. Generally, stock use would be concentrated on the designated
trails and routes; cross-country travel would not be allowed. For stock
users, the limited access to the backcountry may have an adverse, minor,
short-term impact on their experience through limiting the areas they
are able to travel.

***Transition Zone***

Limited commercial interpretive guiding on specified trails would be
allowed in the Transition Zone within recommended wilderness under this
alternative. The Transition Zone is currently not managed by day use
limits and the area currently experiences high levels of visitor use.
Commercially guided hikes would offer a different type of experience for
visitors who were seeking an experience of private interpretation in the
backcountry, and for those visitors these hikes would provide
beneficial, minor, short-term impacts to their experience.

***Research Natural Area Zone***

Under this alternative, Research Natural Areas would continue to be
closed to general recreational visitor use. This plan/EA does not
propose to change any management of these areas that would affect
general visitor use or experience. Therefore, there would be no affects
of the implementation of Alternative B on visitor use and experience
within the Research Natural Area Zone.

**Cumulative Effects**

Implementation of the Fire Management Plan, development of private lands
along the boundary of the park, and the implementation of exotic plant
monitoring and control program would cumulatively have a short-term,
minor, adverse effect to visitor's experiences in the backcountry. All
of these actions would increase human presence and signs of human
activity in the backcountry, reducing the visual quality, experience of
solitude, and wilderness resources in the short-term, when these actions
were taking place. However, as the beneficial effects of noxious weed
management and fuels reduction efforts are realized, visitors would
experience long-term, moderate, beneficial cumulative impacts, due to
improved ecological conditions in these areas.

**Conclusion**

Under Alternative B, the existing range of visitor experiences would be
largely preserved while controlling resource impacts. Maintaining
visitor use limits would help to ensure that visitors have many
opportunities to experience solitude, natural soundscapes and unconfined
recreation. The new encounter rates and group size limits would likely
have a negligible to beneficial effect on most visitors in the study
area. Introducing commercial guiding into recommended wilderness within
the Transition Zone would likely provide experiences for visitors who
would not otherwise choose to experience the backcountry, while also
protecting resources and providing additional opportunities for
interpretation. The addition of and adherence to VERP standards would
produce a beneficial, moderate, long-term impact through adaptive
management to protect the key characteristics and wilderness value of
ZION's backcountry resources. Because of designated campsites and
trails, and permit requirements some visitors may experience adverse,
minor, and short-term impacts because of a perceived loss of freedom of
choice.

Cumulative impacts would be short-term, minor and adverse because of
increased human presence, signs of human activity in the backcountry,
and potential reductions in solitude. Over the long-term, however, the
cumulative impact could be moderate and beneficial from improved
ecological conditions.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488644 .anchor}**Threatened, Endangered, and
Sensitive Animal Species**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488645 .anchor}**Affected Environment**

The animal species listed in Table 20 and described below either occur
in or have the potential to occur within ZION. The list is based on
consultation with the USFWS (Appendix E).

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table 20: Threatened                            
  and Endangered Animal                             
  Species**                                         
  ------------------------ ------------------------ ---------------------
  **Common Name**          **Scientific Name**      **Federal Status**

  Mexican Spotted Owl      *Strix occidentalis      Threatened
                           lucida*                  

  Bald Eagle               *Haliaeetus              Threatened
                           leucocephalus*           

  California Condor        *Gymnogyps               Endangered
                           californianus*           

  Western Yellow-billed    *Coccyzus americanus     Candidate
  Cuckoo                   occidentalis*            

  Southwestern Willow      *Empidonax traillii      Endangered
  Flycatcher               extimus*                 

  Desert Tortoise          *Gopherus agassizii*     Threatened

  Virgin River Chub        *Gila seminuda*          Endangered

  Woundfin                 *Plagopterus             Endangered
                           argentissimus*           
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

ZION is within the Colorado Plateau Recovery Unit for the **Mexican
spotted owl** (*Strix occidentalis lucida*), which is federally listed
as a threatened species. The Mexican spotted owl reaches the
northwestern limits of its range in this recovery unit (USDI, USFWS,
1995a), and all of ZION is designated as critical habitat for this
species (USDI, USFWS, 2004). ZION has 17 (possibly 18) known Mexican
spotted owl territories, which are widely distributed. A spotted owl
monitoring program for the park was initiated in 1995 and continues
today.

The **bald eagle** (*Haliaeetus leucocephalus*), a federally threatened
species, winters in the vicinity of the park, especially in the Sevier
River Valley east of the park. Although they are commonly observed near
the Blue Creek Reservoir to the north, only a few bald eagles are
observed each year in the park during the winter and early spring
months. Birds occasionally enter the park perch along the North Fork of
the Virgin River. Bald eagle use in the park is sporadic, uncommon, and
unpredictable. Large congregations of the birds do not occur, and there
are no known, regularly used, winter perch sites or known roost sites
within the park.

A nonessential, experimental population (Section 10(j) of the Endangered
Species Act) of the federally endangered **California condor**
*(Gymnogyps californianus)* was reintroduced into northern Arizona
(USDI, USFWS, 1996). The condor must be treated as a listed threatened
species under the 10(j) designation in the park. During the summer of
2004, 10 to 14 condors extensively used the area north of the park and
were known to venture regularly into the park during that time. Condors
were observed in the main canyon in the summer of 2006. The condors
appear to be expanding their range farther to the north and may be
expected to visit ZION more frequently in the future. They currently are
not known to use the park year-round, and do not use the park as a
breeding area.

The **western yellow-billed cuckoo** *(Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis)* has candidate species status and is considered a rare
summer resident and migrant in the park (Wauer, 1997). No more than a
few sightings occur each year. Their primary breeding habitat is an
overstory of cottonwood canopy that is present in the park, but cuckoos
have not been known to breed in the park (Wauer, 1997).

The federally endangered **southwestern willow flycatcher** (*Empidonax
traillii extimus*) nests primarily in mid-to-low elevation riparian
habitat along rivers, streams, or other wetlands where a dense growth of
willows or other plants are present. There was one confirmed sighting of
this neotropical migrant in the park in 1994 along the East Fork of the
Virgin River. A 1998 survey of the park's riparian habitat that seemed
capable of supporting flycatchers found no birds, although several pairs
have been found downstream of the park along the Virgin River. One bird
was located in the Birch Creek survey area in 1999 but apparently was a
migrant.

A small population of federally threatened **desert tortoises**
(*Gopherus agassizii*) occurs in one small area of the park. A study was
completed in 2003 using line distance sampling techniques, which
resulted in an average of 14 individuals, with a 95 percent confidence
interval from 12 to 26 individuals (P. Stephen Corn, personal
communication). The Upper Virgin River recovery plan unit for the
tortoise does not encompass lands within the park, and there is no
critical habitat designated within the park (UDWR, 2000).

The endangered **Virgin River chub** (*Gila seminude*) and **Woundfin**
(*Plagopterus argentissimus*) are not known to occur in ZION. They are
both known to occur downstream from the park in the Virgin River below
the town of LaVerkin.

**The following wildlife species are either under conservation
agreements or are listed as a Utah sensitive species.**

Although the **peregrine falcon** *(Falco peregrinus anatum)* was
removed from the federal list of endangered and threatened species in
1999, ZION continues to monitor territories associated with climbing
routes. ZION is known to have 19 historic falcon territories. A subset
of those territories and the climbing route territories are monitored
each year (USDI, NPS, 2001a). Each year areas with known nest sites are
closed to visitor use at the beginning of nesting season. If a nest site
is not used, the area is opened to visitor use. In areas where the nest
sites are used the areas are closed until the young falcons have
fledged.

Several nests of breeding **northern goshawks** *(Accipiter gentilis)*
have been found in the park (USDI, NPS, 1999). These birds inhabit
higher elevations in the park. They prefer coniferous forests, but will
also inhabit mixed forests.

The **Virgin spinedace** (*Lepidomeda mollispinis mollispinis*) and
**Flannelmouth Sucker** (*Catostomus latipinnis*) are both managed under
Conservation Agreements in lieu of listing as a threatened or endangered
species. Both fish have similar ranges in the park and are found in the
North Fork and East Fork of the Virgin River and several short
tributaries within Zion and Parunuweap Canyons. They are found
downstream of the park in North Creek and LaVerkin Creek. Since 1994,
the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) has been monitoring these
fish at two park locations (UDWR, 2003). Monitoring would continue
annually.

  --------------- -------------------------------------------------------------
  **Threatened,   
  Endangered and  
  Sensitive       
  Animal Species  
  Impact          
  Threshold       
  Definitions**   

  Negligible      No federally listed species or sensitive species would be
                  affected, or the alternative would affect an individual of a
                  listed species, its critical habitat, or sensitive species,
                  but the change would be so small that it would not be of any
                  measurable or perceptible consequence to the protected
                  individual or its population.

  Minor           The alternative would affect an individual(s) of a listed
                  species, its critical habitat, or sensitive species, but the
                  change would be small.

  Moderate        An individual or population of a listed species, its critical
                  habitat, or sensitive species would be noticeably affected.
                  The effect would have some consequence to the individual,
                  population, or habitat.

  Major           An individual or population of a listed species, its critical
                  habitat, or sensitive species would be noticeably affected
                  with a vital consequence to the individual, population, or
                  habitat.

  Duration        Short-term -- recovers in less than one year

                  Long-term -- requires more than one year to recover

  Area of         The area of analysis is referred to as the "study area" and
  Analysis        includes recommended wilderness, and portions of the Pristine
                  and Primitive Zones that fall outside of recommended
                  wilderness.
  --------------- -------------------------------------------------------------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488646 .anchor}**Effects of Alternative A -- No
Action**

**Federally Listed Species**

The potential impacts from the implementation of Alternative A on
federally listed animal species are described below.

**Mexican Spotted Owl (Threatened):** Backcountry visitation would
continue to increase in some areas under Alternative A. The Mexican
spotted owl monitoring program would also continue under this
alternative. In ZION the owls have been monitored since 1995. The
monitoring has shown that owls continue to nest and fledge young in
areas where visitor use has increased over the years. It is not known
whether these particular owls have simply become used to human activity
or if spotted owls in ZION are not bothered by human activity. With that
said, encounters with Mexican spotted owl in the study area could cause
behavioral disturbance, increase stress levels, and temporarily displace
animals from areas that receive high human use. With continued increases
in visitation, impacts to owls would be expected to be short-term,
minor, and adverse since any disturbance would likely only affect
individuals and offspring for the current breeding season. The
population as a whole or their critical habitat would not be affected.
Therefore, implementation of Alternative A **may affect, but is not
likely to adversely affect** Mexican spotted owls or their critical
habitat.

**Bald Eagle (Threatened):** Bald eagles are occasionally seen in the
park along the Virgin River in the winter months only. There are no
known regularly used perch sites and they do not breed in the park.
Because of this, any adverse impacts would be negligible, short-term,
and implementation of Alternative A would continue to have **no effect**
on the bald eagle.

**California Condor (Endangered):** The California condor is a summer
visitor and does not breed in the park. Increased human use in the park
could affect roosting condors and displace individuals, especially early
in the morning and late in the afternoon when the lack of thermals would
require birds to expend greater energy in search of new roost sites.
Increased visitor use would increase the potential for human/condor
interactions in ZION and potentially inhibit condor colonization of the
park. At this time, because of the limited occurrence of the species in
the park, any adverse impact would be minor and short-term. Therefore,
selection of Alternative A **may affect, but is not likely to adversely
affect** the California condor.

**Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Candidate):** This bird is a rare summer
resident and migrant in the park. This species is not known to breed in
the park since its preferred breeding habitat of mature cottonwood trees
is limited -- occurring mainly along the Virgin River in the main canyon
and in Parunuweap Canyon. Since the majority of their preferred habitat
occurs in the Frontcountry (Virgin River main canyon) and the Parunuweap
Research Natural Area (closed to recreation use) backcountry management
activities and visitor use would not affect the species. Therefore, any
adverse impacts would be negligible, short-term and implementation of
Alternative A would result in **no effect** on the western yellow-billed
cuckoo.

**Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Endangered):** This bird also prefers
riparian habitat, but is found primarily in dense willows or other
riparian shrubs. This habitat is limited in the park. A survey completed
in 1998 found no southwestern willow flycatchers in the park. Given that
the species is not currently known to occur in the park any adverse
impacts on the species would be negligible and short-term, and
implementation of Alternative A would have **no effect** on the
southwestern willow flycatcher.

**Desert Tortoise (Threatened):** A small population of desert tortoise
is found in one area of the park (southwestern corner). There are no
trails in the area where tortoises occur in the park. Therefore these
areas are not likely to be visited, so any adverse impacts to tortoise
would be negligible and short-term under Alternative A, resulting in a
**no effect** determination.

**Virgin River Chub (Endangered) and Woundfin (Endangered):** Neither of
these species is known to occur in ZION or immediately downstream, based
on staff knowledge and past surveys. The Virgin River chub has the
closest known distribution to the park (Virgin River below LaVerkin),
but is far enough downstream that any water quality effects related to
increased human visitation to ZION would be reduced with time and
distance from the activity. Therefore, implementation of Alternative A
would result in negligible, adverse, short-term impacts which would
result in a **no effect** determination for these listed species.

**State-Listed or Other Sensitive Species**

The potential impacts from the implementation of Alternative A on State
listed and other sensitive animal species are described below.

**Peregrine Falcon:** The success of peregrine falcon nesting and
fledging of young could be adversely affected by human activity. Under
Alternative A the existing peregrine falcon monitoring program would
continue. Every year the monitoring program inventories nest sites near
areas of visitor use, like popular rock climbing routes. Areas with
known nest sites are closed to visitor use at the beginning of nesting
season. If a nest site is not used, the area is opened to visitor use.
In areas where the nest sites are used the areas are closed until the
young falcons have fledged. With these protections in place it is
assumed that any adverse impacts to peregrine falcon from the
implementation of Alternative A would be minor, localized, and
short-term.

**Northern Goshawk:** Several northern goshawk nest locations have been
recorded in the park. These nest sites occur in areas with little
backcountry visitor use. Any impacts to the northern goshawks or their
nest sites would likely come from occasional visitors hiking off-trail
by these sites. When visitors pass by, the birds could either leave the
nest until the humans had passed or simply stay in the nest. Therefore,
any adverse impacts from the implementation of Alternative A would be
short-term, negligible to minor, and localized.

**Virgin Spinedace and Flannelmouth Sucker:** The Virgin spinedace and
flannelmouth sucker are found in the Virgin River and tributaries within
and beyond the park. If water contamination from increased human
visitation were to occur, resultant impacts could occur to surface
waters that could indirectly affect these species. However, it would be
expected that the fish would swim away from affected areas, and relocate
to other habitat if water quality began to deteriorate in the vicinity
of the contamination. If contamination occurred during or before
spawning, minor to moderate, short-term adverse impacts to spawning beds
could occur. Any water quality effects related to increased human
visitation to ZION would be reduced with time and distance from the
activity. Therefore, any adverse impacts to Virgin spinedace and
flannelmouth sucker from implementation of Alternative A, though
potentially moderate, would be short-term.

**Cumulative Effects**

Cumulative impacts to threatened, endangered and sensitive animal
species include the actions under Alternative A as well as additional
impacts stemming from fire management activities, the development of
lands adjacent to the park, and noxious weed monitoring and control.

Through the fire management planning process completed in 2005, several
mitigating measure were identified to protect threatened, endangered,
and sensitive animal species and their populations and enhance their
habitats. Some of the measures included restrictions on aircraft use,
ensuring that burn plans take into consideration species foraging and
habitat needs, and leaving some snags and dead and down wood for
wildlife use.

Development of private lands adjacent to the park has been increasing in
recent years. The currently undeveloped lands are being developed mainly
for residential use. This development could impact threatened,
endangered, and sensitive animal species in two ways. First, raptors use
some of the areas to hunt for prey. If the lands are developed prey
would either move to another area or simply die out, thus reducing or
eliminating the prey base. Second, the areas of the park adjacent to
these private lands currently receive little use. If the lands are
developed there would be more people in these areas, thus increasing the
potential for use in previously little used areas. This use could
adversely impact threatened, endangered, and sensitive animal species or
their prey.

Noxious weed monitoring and control in the backcountry could temporarily
displace wildlife while the activity is occurring. Although this effect
could be adverse, it would be short-term and minor. Long-term, moderate,
and beneficial effects would come from eliminating non-native plant
species, thus providing better habitat for wildlife species and their
prey.

Therefore, it is anticipated that implementation of Alternative A would
result in adverse and beneficial, minor to moderate, and short- and
long-term cumulative impacts on threatened, endangered, and sensitive
animal species.

**Conclusion**

The No Action Alternative represents no change from current management.
Although this alternative provides a baseline for evaluating the changes
and impacts of Alternative B, the overall environmental consequences to
threatened, endangered, and sensitive animal species from this
alternative would increase as visitor levels and recreational
activities, and their associated disturbances to these animals increase
in ZION.

Threatened and endangered animal species would be affected by the
implementation of Alternative A mainly from noise associated with human
activities such as hiking and camping. These impacts would not be
uniformly distributed across the park, but would affect threatened and
endangered animal species in areas with higher visitor use. It is
anticipated that little additional impact to these species would occur
under Alternative A in areas where visitor use is low. The overall level
of adverse impact to threatened and endangered animal species in the
study area would be negligible to minor and short-term.

Other sensitive animal species would be affected in the short-term, with
minor to potentially moderate impacts. Cumulative impacts would be minor
to moderate, short- and long-term, and adverse and beneficial.

**Impairment Analysis**

Because there would be no major, adverse impacts to threatened and
endangered animal species or other sensitive animal species whose
conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in
the establishing legislation of Zion; (2) key to the natural or cultural
integrity of the park; or (3) identified as a goal in the park's GMP or
other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of
the park's threatened and endangered animal species or other sensitive
animal species.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488647 .anchor}**Effects of Alternative B --
Proposed Action**

**Federally Listed Species**

The potential impacts from the implementation of Alternative B on
federally listed animal species are described below.

**Mexican Spotted Owl (Threatened):** Backcountry visitation would
continue to increase in some areas under Alternative B. The Mexican
spotted owl monitoring program would also continue under this
alternative. In ZION the owls have been monitored since 1995. Monitoring
has shown that owls continue to nest and fledge young in areas where
visitor use has increased over the years. It is not known whether these
particular owls have simply become used to human activity or if spotted
owls in ZION are not bothered by human activity. With that said,
encounters with Mexican spotted owl in the study area could cause
behavioral disturbance, increase stress levels, and temporarily displace
animals from areas that receive high human use. Alternative B proposes
additional monitoring with management actions that could include
reducing the numbers of visitors per day in areas where owls are nesting
or closing areas to visitation during the nesting season. Even with
continued increases in backcountry visitation in general, management
actions proposed in Alternative B are expected to decrease impacts to
Mexican spotted owls. Impacts to owls would be expected to be
short-term, negligible to minor, and adverse since any disturbance would
likely only affect individuals and offspring for the current breeding
season. The population as a whole or their critical habitat would not be
affected. Therefore, implementation of Alternative B **may affect, but
is not likely to adversely affect** Mexican spotted owls or their
critical habitat.

**Bald Eagle (Threatened):** Bald eagles are occasionally seen in the
park along the Virgin River in the winter months only. There are no
known regularly used perch sites and they do not breed in the park.
Because of this, any adverse impacts would be negligible, short-term,
and implementation of Alternative B would continue to have **no effect**
on the bald eagle.

**California Condor (Endangered):** The California condor is a summer
visitor and does not breed in the park. Increased human use in the park
could affect roosting condors and displace individuals, especially early
in the morning and late in the afternoon when the lack of thermals would
require birds to expend greater energy in search of new roost sites.
Increased visitor use would increase the potential for human/condor
interactions in ZION and potentially inhibit condor colonization of the
park. At this time, because of the limited occurrence of the species in
the park any adverse impact would be minor and short-term. Therefore,
selection of Alternative B **may affect, but is not likely to adversely
affect** the California condor.

**Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Candidate):** This bird is a rare summer
resident and migrant in the park. This species is not known to breed in
the park since its preferred breeding habitat of mature cottonwood trees
is limited -- occurring mainly along the Virgin River in the main canyon
and in Parunuweap Canyon. Since the majority of their preferred habitat
occurs in the Frontcountry (Virgin River main canyon) and the Parunuweap
Research Natural Area (closed to recreation use) backcountry management
activities and visitor use would not affect the species. Therefore, any
adverse impacts would be negligible, short-term, and implementation of
Alternative B would result in **no effect** on the western yellow-billed
cuckoo.

**Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Endangered):** This bird also prefers
riparian habitat, but is found primarily in dense willows or other
riparian shrubs. This habitat is limited in the park. A survey completed
in 1998 found no southwestern willow flycatchers in the park. Given that
the species is not currently known to occur in the park any adverse
impacts on the species would be negligible, short-term, and
implementation of Alternative B would have **no effect** on the
southwestern willow flycatcher.

**Desert Tortoise (Threatened):** A small population of desert tortoise
is found in one area of the park (southwestern corner). There are no
trails in the area where tortoises occur in the park. Therefore these
areas are not likely to be visited, so any adverse impacts to tortoise
would be negligible and short-term under Alternative B, resulting in a
**no effect** determination.

**Virgin River Chub (Endangered) and Woundfin (Endangered):** Neither of
these species is known to occur in ZION or immediately downstream, based
on staff knowledge and past surveys. The Virgin River chub has the
closest known distribution to the park (Virgin River below LaVerkin),
but is far enough downstream that any water quality effects related to
increased human visitation to ZION would be reduced with time and
distance from the activity. Therefore, implementation of Alternative B
would result in negligible, adverse, short-term impacts which would
result in a **no effect** determination for these listed species.

**State-Listed or Other Sensitive Species**

The potential impacts from the implementation of Alternative B on State
listed and other sensitive animal species are described below.

**Peregrine Falcon:** The success of peregrine falcon nesting and
fledging of young could be adversely affected by human activity. Under
Alternative B the existing peregrine falcon monitoring program would
continue. Every year the monitoring program inventories nest sites near
areas of visitor use, like popular rock climbing routes. Areas with
known nest sites are closed to visitor use at the beginning of nesting
season. If a nest site is not used, the area is opened to visitor use.
In areas where the nest sites are used the areas are closed until the
young falcons have fledged. With these protections in place it is
assumed that any adverse impacts to peregrine falcon from the
implementation of Alternative B would be minor, localized, and
short-term.

**Northern Goshawk:** Several northern goshawk nest locations have been
recorded in the park. These nest sites occur in areas with little
backcountry visitor use. Any impacts to the northern goshawks or their
nest sites would likely come from occasional visitors hiking off-trail
by these sites. When visitors pass by, the birds could either leave the
nest until the humans had passed or simply stay in the nest. Therefore,
any adverse impacts from the implementation of Alternative B would be
short-term, negligible to minor, and localized.

**Virgin Spinedace and Flannelmouth Sucker:** The Virgin spinedace and
flannelmouth sucker are found in the Virgin River and tributaries within
and beyond the park. If water contamination from increased human
visitation were to occur, resultant impacts could occur to surface
waters that could indirectly affect these species. However, it would be
expected that the fish would swim away from affected areas, and relocate
to other habitat if water quality began to deteriorate in the vicinity
of the contamination. If contamination occurred during or before
spawning, minor to moderate, short-term adverse impacts to spawning beds
could occur. Any water quality effects related to increased human
visitation to ZION would be reduced with time and distance from the
activity. Therefore, any adverse impacts to Virgin spinedace and
flannelmouth sucker from Alternative B, though potentially moderate,
would be short-term.

**Cumulative Effects**

Cumulative impacts to threatened, endangered, and sensitive animal
species include the actions under Alternative B as well as additional
impacts stemming from fire management activities, the development of
lands adjacent to the park, and noxious weed monitoring and control.

Through the fire management planning process completed in 2005, several
mitigating measure were identified to protect threatened, endangered,
and sensitive animal species and their populations and enhance their
habitats. Some of the measures included restrictions on aircraft use,
ensuring that burn plans take into consideration species foraging and
habitat needs, and leaving some snags and dead and down wood for
wildlife use.

Development of private lands adjacent to the park has been increasing in
recent years. The currently undeveloped lands are being developed mainly
for residential use. This development could impact threatened,
endangered, and sensitive animal species in two ways. First, raptors use
some of the areas to hunt for prey. If the lands are developed prey
would either move to another area or simply die out, thus reducing or
eliminating the prey base. Second, the areas of the park adjacent to
these private lands currently receive little use. If the lands are
developed there would be more people in these areas, thus increasing the
potential for use in previously little used areas. This use could
adversely impact threatened, endangered, and sensitive animal species or
their prey.

Noxious weed monitoring and control in the backcountry could temporarily
displace wildlife while the activity is occurring. Although this effect
could be adverse, it would be short-term and minor. Long-term, moderate,
and beneficial effects would come from eliminating non-native plant
species, thus providing better habitat for wildlife species and their
prey.

Therefore, it is anticipated that cumulative adverse and beneficial
impacts to these animal species would be minor to moderate, and short-
and long-term.

**Conclusion**

As it is anticipated that visitor use would increase in the park,
limiting the number of per day visitors in some sections of the park and
incorporating VERP standards would decrease impacts to threatened,
endangered, and sensitive animal populations or their habitats.

Threatened and endangered animal species would be affected by
implementation of Alternative B mainly from noise associated with human
activities such as hiking and camping. These impacts would not be
uniformly distributed across the park, but would affect these animals in
areas with higher visitor use. Areas where visitor use is low are
anticipated to receive little additional impacts to these animals under
Alternative B. The overall level of adverse impact on threatened and
endangered animal species would be less than Alternative A, as greater
control over visitor use would be incorporated. As such, any adverse
impacts would be negligible to minor and short-term.

Other sensitive animal species would be affected in the short-term, with
minor to potentially moderate impacts. Cumulative impacts would be minor
to moderate, short- and long-term, and adverse and beneficial.

**Impairment Analysis**

Because there would be no major, adverse impacts to threatened and
endangered animal species or other sensitive animal species whose
conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in
the establishing legislation of Zion; (2) key to the natural or cultural
integrity of the park; or (3) identified as a goal in the park's GMP or
other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of
the park's threatened and endangered animal species or other sensitive
animal species.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488648 .anchor}**Threatened, Endangered, and
Sensitive Plant Species**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488649 .anchor}**Affected Environment**

The plant species listed in Table 21 and described below either occur in
ZION or nearby. The list is based on consultation with the USFWS
(Appendix E).

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table 21: Threatened                            
  and Endangered Plant                              
  Species**                                         
  ------------------------ ------------------------ ---------------------
  **Common Name**          **Scientific Name**      **Federal Status**

  Shivwits Milkvetch       *Astragalus              Endangered
                           ampullarioides*          

  Holmgren Milkvetch       *Astragalus              Endangered
                           holmgreniorum*           

  Dwarf Bear-poppy         *Arctomecon humilis*     Endangered

  Siler Pincushion Cactus  *Pediocactus sileri*     Threatened
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

One federally listed endangered plant species, the **Shivwits
milkvetch** (*Astragalus ampullarioides*), occurs in ZION. This species
was listed in 2001 by the USFWS because of its extremely limited range
on the Chinle Formation and its rapidly vanishing habitat due to
development outside the park (USDI, USFWS, 2001). On December 27, 2006
the USFWS designated 1,201 acres of critical habitat for Shivwits
milkvetch within the park (USDI, USFWS, 2006).

**Holmgren milkvetch** (*Astragalus holmgreniorum*), **dwarf
bear-poppy** (*Arctomecon humilis*), and **Siler pincushion cactus**
(*Pediocactus sileri*) are not known to occur in ZION.

ZION also hosts 22 plant species considered "sensitive" by the park and
the state of Utah because of their limited distribution (endemism) or
are disjunct from more abundant population centers. Many of these
species are specialized to sandstone crevices and derived soils or
hanging gardens. Table 22 lists ZION's sensitive plants according to
habitat (Atwood et. al 1991, Welsh et. al 1993 and 1975, Welsh 1988).

+---------------+--------------------------------+---------------------+
| Table 22:     |                                |                     |
| Sensitive     |                                |                     |
| Plant Species |                                |                     |
| by Habitat    |                                |                     |
+---------------+--------------------------------+---------------------+
| **Common      | **Scientific Name**            | **Habitat**         |
| Name**        |                                |                     |
+---------------+--------------------------------+---------------------+
| Clark's       | *Lomatium graveolens* var.     | Ponderosa pine      |
| lomatium      | *clarkii*                      | forest understory   |
|               |                                | or pinyon pine      |
|               |                                | understory          |
+---------------+--------------------------------+---------------------+
| Zion          | *Penstemon humilus* var.       |                     |
| penstemon     | *obtusifolia*                  |                     |
+---------------+--------------------------------+---------------------+
| Higgin's      | *Penstemon leonardii* var.     |                     |
| penstemon     | *higginsii*                    |                     |
+---------------+--------------------------------+---------------------+
| Charleston's  | *Viola charlestonensis*        |                     |
| violet        |                                |                     |
+---------------+--------------------------------+---------------------+
| Bog violet    | *Viola clauseniana*            |                     |
+---------------+--------------------------------+---------------------+
| Religious     | *Erigeron religiosus*          | Dry meadows         |
| daisy         |                                |                     |
+---------------+--------------------------------+---------------------+
| Panguitch     | *Eriogonum panguinense*        | Exposed limestone   |
| buckwheat     |                                |                     |
+---------------+--------------------------------+---------------------+
| Charleston's  | *Viola charlestonensis*        |                     |
| violet        |                                |                     |
+---------------+--------------------------------+---------------------+
| Shivwits      | *Astragalus ampullarioides*    | Chinle and Moenkopi |
| milkvetch     | (federally endangered)         | Formations          |
|               |                                |                     |
|               |                                | (barren badlands)   |
+---------------+--------------------------------+---------------------+
| Springdale    | *Eriogonum corymbosum* var.    |                     |
| buckwheat     | *matthewsiae*                  |                     |
+---------------+--------------------------------+---------------------+
| Chia          | *Salvia columbariae* var.      |                     |
|               | *argentea*                     |                     |
+---------------+--------------------------------+---------------------+
| Zion draba    | *Draba asperella*              | Sandstone soils and |
|               |                                | crevices            |
+---------------+--------------------------------+---------------------+
| Canaan daisy  | *Erigeron canaani*             |                     |
+---------------+--------------------------------+---------------------+
| James'        | *Eriogonum jamesii*            |                     |
| buckwheat     |                                |                     |
+---------------+--------------------------------+---------------------+
| Zion          | *Eriogonum racemosum* var.     |                     |
| buckwheat     | *zionis*                       |                     |
+---------------+--------------------------------+---------------------+
| Jones'        | *Heterotheca jonesii*          |                     |
| goldenaster   |                                |                     |
+---------------+--------------------------------+---------------------+
| Zion          | *Penstemon humilus* var.       |                     |
| penstemon     | *obtusifolia*                  |                     |
+---------------+--------------------------------+---------------------+
| Utah          | *Selaginella utahensis*        |                     |
| spikemoss     |                                |                     |
+---------------+--------------------------------+---------------------+
| Ruth's        | *Sphaeromeria ruthiae*         |                     |
| sphaeromeria  |                                |                     |
+---------------+--------------------------------+---------------------+
| Foster's      | *Aquilegia formosa* var.       | Hanging garden or   |
| columbine     | *fosteri*                      | wetland             |
+---------------+--------------------------------+---------------------+
| Black         | *Asplenium adiantum-nigrum*    |                     |
| spleenwort    |                                |                     |
+---------------+--------------------------------+---------------------+
| Hays' sedge   | *Carex haysii*                 |                     |
+---------------+--------------------------------+---------------------+
| Zion daisy    | *Erigeron sionis*              |                     |
+---------------+--------------------------------+---------------------+
| Cliff jamesia | *Jamesia americana*            |                     |
+---------------+--------------------------------+---------------------+

  --------------- -------------------------------------------------------------
  **Threatened,   
  Endangered and  
  Sensitive Plant 
  Species Impact  
  Threshold       
  Definitions**   

  Negligible      No federally listed species or sensitive species would be
                  affected or the alternative would affect an individual of a
                  listed species, its critical habitat, or a sensitive species,
                  but the change would be so small that it would not be of any
                  measurable or perceptible consequence to the protected
                  individual or its population.

  Minor           The alternative would affect an individual(s) of a listed
                  species, its critical habitat, or a sensitive species, but
                  the change would be small.

  Moderate        An individual or population of a listed species, its critical
                  habitat, or a sensitive species would be noticeably affected.
                  The effect would have some consequence to the individual,
                  population, or habitat.

  Major           An individual or population of a listed species, its critical
                  habitat, or a sensitive species would be noticeably affected
                  with a vital consequence to the individual, population, or
                  habitat.

  Duration        Short-term -- recovers in less than one year

                  Long-term -- requires more than one year to recover

  Area of         The area of analysis is referred to as the "study area" and
  Analysis        includes recommended wilderness, and portions of the Pristine
                  and Primitive Zones that fall outside of recommended
                  wilderness.
  --------------- -------------------------------------------------------------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488650 .anchor}**Effects of Alternative A -- No
Action**

A variety of activities could contribute to loss of threatened,
endangered, and sensitive plants and their habitats in the study area.
Hiking and camping activities can create informal trails that can become
established. These trails are typically devoid of vegetation and on
steep slopes can lead to erosion. The direct impacts to vegetation from
hiking include structural damage to plant tissues (e.g., compression,
abrasion, stem breakage).

**Federally Listed Species**

Shivwits milkvetch occurs within 1,201 acres of critical habitat in
limited abundance in the southwest section of the park. This area
receives limited use by visitors; with most use occurring from late fall
through early spring. The area is at the lowest elevation of the park
and has little water; so the area is more desirable in the cooler
months.

In one location, the trail goes through a small population of Shivwits
milkvetch. To date, individual plants have not been affected by visitor
use, including horse use. But with increasing visitation and without
monitoring there is a potential for adverse impacts to individual
plants. Since the bulk of the population is off the trail and there is
very limited off-trail use and camping is not allowed within this area,
likely adverse impacts to Shivwits milkvetch would be negligible to
minor, short-term, and localized. Therefore, implementation of
Alternative A **may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect**
Shivwits milkvetch or the critical habitat.

Holmgren milkvetch, dwarf bear-poppy, and Siler pincushion cactus are
not known to grow in ZION and there is no likely habitat for any of
theses species in the park. Because of this there would be no impacts
from the implementation of Alternative A on any of these species.
Therefore, implementation of Alternative A would result in a **no
effect** determination for these listed species.

**State-Listed or Other Sensitive Species**

In general, most of the 22 sensitive plant species grow in locations
that are either very difficult to access (hanging gardens) or they grow
in specialized habitats (sandstone crevices) away from designated trails
or popular cross-country routes.

Visitors could impact individual plants by inadvertently trampling them
while traveling cross-country or through activities associated with
at-large camping. With increasing visitor use, no change in group size
limits or numbers of visitors into an area, and with no monitoring
program in place, it is probable that adverse impacts to sensitive
plants species could increase.

Overall, any adverse impacts to sensitive plants and their habitats
under Alternative A would be minor to moderate, and short-term.

**Cumulative Effects**

Cumulative impacts to federally listed and sensitive plant species
include actions described under Alternative A, plus disturbance from
fire management activities, associated impacts from private land
development along the park boundary, and from exotic plant monitoring
and control.

Before any prescribed fire, the area is surveyed for threatened,
endangered and sensitive plant species. If any of these species are
found, the area is flagged and avoided if the plant species are not
tolerant of fire (as outlined in the ZION Fire Management Plan 2005). If
the plants are tolerant of fire, they are allowed to burn.

Development of lands adjacent to the park could increase visitor use in
areas along the park boundary that historically have had little use.
Although, impacts to listed and sensitive plant species would be minor
because the majority of these areas do not have habitats that support
sensitive plant species.

In the backcountry, exotic plant monitoring and control activities
generally occur in areas near the park boundary, near private land
inholdings, and in areas of pre-park-designation disturbance (e.g.,
livestock grazing, stock pond development, logging). Park staff
performing monitoring and control activities know the locations of
listed and sensitive plant species, know how to identify these species,
and know how to avoid these species.

Therefore, any adverse cumulative impacts to federally listed and
sensitive plant species from the actions described above would be minor
and short-term.

**Conclusion**

Alternative A would result in negligible to minor, short-term, and
localized adverse impacts to the federally protected Shivwits milkvetch.
Therefore, Alternative A **may affect, but is not likely to adversely
affect** Shivwits milkvetch or the critical habitat.

Holmgren milkvetch, dwarf bear-poppy, and Siler pincushion cactus are
not known to grow in ZION and there is no likely habitat for any of
theses species in the park. Because of this there would be no impacts
from the implementation of Alternative A on any of these species.
Therefore, implementation of Alternative A would result in a **no
effect** determination for these listed species.

Overall, any adverse impacts to sensitive plants and their habitats
under Alternative A would be minor to moderate, and short-term.

Any adverse cumulative impacts to federally listed and sensitive plant
species from the actions described above would be minor, and short-term.

**Impairment Analysis**

Because there would be no major, adverse impacts to threatened and
endangered or sensitive plant species whose conservation is (1)
necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing
legislation of the park; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of
the park; or (3) identified as a goal in the park's GMP or other
relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the
park's threatened and endangered or sensitive plant species.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488651 .anchor}**Effects of Alternative B --
Proposed Action**

A variety of activities could contribute to loss of threatened,
endangered, and sensitive plants and their habitats in the study area.
Hiking and camping activities can create informal trails that can become
established. These trails are typically devoid of vegetation and on
steep slopes can lead to erosion. The direct impacts to rare vegetation
from hiking include structural damage to plant tissues (e.g.,
compression, abrasion, stem breakage).

**Federally Listed Species**

Shivwits milkvetch occurs within 1,201 acres of critical habitat in
limited abundance in the southwest section of the park. This area
receives limited use by visitors; with most use occurring from late fall
through early spring. The area is at the lowest elevation of the park
and has little water; so the area is more desirable in the cooler
months.

In one location, the trail goes through a small population of Shivwits
milkvetch. To date, individual plants have not been affected by visitor
use, including horse use. Even with increasing visitation, because of
trail use monitoring there is less potential for direct or indirect
adverse impacts to individual plants. The population as a whole is
somewhat protected because the bulk of the population is off the trail
and there is very limited off-trail use and camping is not allowed
within critical habitat. Therefore any likely adverse impact to Shivwits
milkvetch would be negligible, short-term, and localized. Implementation
of Alternative B would result in a **no effect** determination for
Shivwits milkvetch or the critical habitat.

Holmgren milkvetch, dwarf bear-poppy, and Siler pincushion cactus are
not known to grow in ZION and there is no likely habitat for any of
theses species in the park. Because of this there would be no impacts
from the implementation of Alternative B on any of these species.
Therefore, implementation of Alternative B would result in a **no
effect** determination for these listed species.

**State-Listed or Other Sensitive Species**

In general, most of the 22 sensitive plant species grow in locations
that are either very difficult to access (hanging gardens) or they grow
in specialized habitats (sandstone crevices) away from designated trails
or popular cross-country routes.

Impacts to sensitive plants from trampling or other disturbance from
visitor use in backcountry areas is currently believed to be minor as
most visitors stay on trails or popular routes or visitor activities do
not encroach into habitats that support these species. Although,
increases in visitor use in general are likely to increase visitor use
in sensitive plant habitats.

Management actions identified in Alternative B would mitigate these
impacts by limiting the group size and the total number of visitors per
day that can use a particular area. Alternative B also designates
additional campsites in areas of heavy use, thus minimizing the
inadvertent impacts of campers on sensitive plant species.
Implementation of resource monitoring (e.g., soil loss, number of access
trails) as identified by Alternative B would also help protect sensitive
plant species by identifying impacts in a timely manner and by
identifying management options to mitigate those impacts.

Overall any adverse impacts to sensitive plant species and their
habitats from Alternative B would be negligible and short-term.

**Cumulative Effects**

Cumulative impacts to federally listed and sensitive plant species
include actions described under Alternative B, plus disturbance from
fire management activities, associated impacts from private land
development along the park boundary, and from exotic plant monitoring
and control.

Before any prescribed fire, the area is surveyed for threatened,
endangered and sensitive plant species. If any of these species are
found the area is flagged and avoided if the plant species are not
tolerant of fire (as outlined in the ZION Fire Management Plan 2005). If
the plants are tolerant of fire, they are allowed to burn.

Development of lands adjacent to the park could increase visitor use in
areas along the park boundary that historically have had little use.
Although, the impacts would be minor because the majority of these areas
do not have habitats that support sensitive plant species.

In the backcountry, exotic plant monitoring and control activities
generally occur in areas near the park boundary, near private land
inholdings, and in areas of pre-park-designation disturbance (e.g.,
livestock grazing, stock pond development, logging). Park staff
performing monitoring and control activities know the locations of
listed and sensitive plant species, know how to identify these species,
and know how to avoid these species.

Therefore, cumulative impacts to federally listed and sensitive plant
species from the actions described above would be adverse, minor, and
short-term.

**Conclusion**

Implementation of Alternative B would result in negligible, short-term,
and localized adverse impact to the federally protected Shivwits
milkvetch. This would result in determination of **no effect** for the
Shivwits milkvetch or the critical habitat.

Holmgren milkvetch, dwarf bear-poppy, and Siler pincushion cactus are
not known to grow in ZION and there is no likely habitat for any of
theses species in the park. Because of this there would be no impacts
from the implementation of Alternative B on any of these species.
Therefore, implementation of Alternative B would result in a **no
effect** determination for these listed species.

Overall any adverse impacts to sensitive plant species and their
habitats from Alternative B would be negligible and short-term.

Cumulative impacts to federally listed and sensitive plant species from
the actions described above would be adverse, minor, and short-term.

**Impairment Analysis**

Because there would be no major, adverse impacts to threatened and
endangered plant species or sensitive plant species whose conservation
is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the
establishing legislation of the park; (2) key to the natural or cultural
integrity of the park; or (3) identified as a goal in the park's GMP or
other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of
the park's threatened, endangered or sensitive plant species.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488652 .anchor}**Vegetation**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488653 .anchor}**Affected Environment**

An elevation range from 3,666 feet to 8,726 feet, coupled with
topographic complexity and unique geologic substrates creates a diverse
flora in ZION; all of which are present in the backcountry. The park
includes four life zones: Lower Sonoran, Upper Sonoran, Transition, and
Canadian. These life zones consist of low elevation desert shrubland
communities with Mojave Desert elements, mid-elevation shrublands and
pinyon-juniper woodlands typical of the Colorado Plateau and Great
Basin, and montane forests and oak brush shrublands at the park's
highest elevations.

Canyons in the park are an important desert oasis, with streams, seeps,
wetlands, and hanging gardens. Perennial and ephemeral streams converge
into the East and North Forks of the Virgin River, hosting riparian tree
species such as the Fremont cottonwood (*Populus fremontii*), Goodings
willow (*Salix goodingii*), boxelder (*Acer negundo*), and velvet ash
(*Fraxinus velutina*). Seepwillow (*Baccharis emoryi*) and coyote willow
(*Salix exigua*) are common riparian shrubs.

Vegetation in the lower to mid-elevations is generally sparse and low in
stature due to lack of moisture. Semi-arid desert species, such as
blackbrush (*Coleogyne ramosissima*), four-wing saltbush (*Atriplex
canescens*) and pockets of mesquite (*Prosopis glandulosa*) are common.
Sandy slopes upland from waterways support mostly pinyon pines (*Pinus
edulis*, *P*. *monophylla*), one-seed juniper (*Juniperus osteosperma*),
sand and big sagebrush (*Artemesia filifolia &* *A.* *tridentata*), and
rubber rabbitbrush (*Chrysothamnus nauseosus*). Interspersed within
these species are pockets of grasses, mainly sand dropseed (*Sporobolus
cryptandrus*), mutton grass (*Poa fendleriana*), and the invading
non-native red brome (*Bromus rubens*). Red brome is becoming a
substantial concern at lower elevations because of its abundance and
flammability.

Steep, rocky talus slopes form transitions between floodplains and
Navajo sandstone cliffs throughout much of the park. On these sites live
oak (*Quercus turbinella*) and silver buffaloberry (*Shepherdia
rotundifolia*) are prevalent, along with pinyon and juniper. In the
center of the park and extending east are large expanses of Navajo
sandstone slickrock and its derived soils. Here, ponderosa pine (*Pinus
ponderosa*) becomes more common, along with opportunistic shrubs, such
as greenleaf manzanita (*Arctostaphylos patula*) and littleleaf mahogany
(*Cercocarpus intricatus*). In mesic canyons and north facing benches,
Douglas fir (*Pseudotsuga menziesii*) occurs.

As the elevation increases, semi-arid shrublands transition to more
mesic montane vegetation. Ponderosa pine, aspen (*Populus tremuloides*),
and white fir (*Abies concolor*) dominate. Tall shrubs consist of gambel
oak (*Quercus gambelii*), serviceberry (*Amelanchier utahensis*, A.
*alnifolia*), and bigtooth maple (*Acer grandidentatum*).

The vegetation of ZION and the surrounding area was mapped through a
project with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, The Nature Conservancy
(Nature Serve), and the NPS. Table 23 and Map G (North & South) display
the major vegetation complexes within ZION delineated by vegetation
community.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Table 23 : Major                                   
  Vegetation Complexes                               
  within Study Area                                  
  ------------------------ ------------------------- --------------------
  **Vegetation             **Native/Non-Native**     **Acreage**
  Communities**                                      

  Exotic Grasses           Non-Native                1,093

  Grass/Herbaceous Lands   Native                    854

  Wetland/Riparian         Native                    2,368

  Exotic Riparian          Non-Native                4

  Desert Shrublands        Native                    1,851

  Shrublands               Native                    5,090

  Slickrock                Native                    8,614

  Mountain Shrub           Native                    28,235

  Aspen                    Native                    280

  Juniper/Pinyon - Juniper Native                    42,882

  Ponderosa Pine           Native                    25,291

  Douglas Fir              Native                    1,714

  White Fir                Native                    2,766

  Bare Soil/Stone          N/A                       24,018
  Formations                                         

  Total acres within Study                           145,060
  area                                               
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**Invasive Exotic Plant Species**

Over 100 non-native plant species occur in ZION. Tamarisk (*Tamarix
ramossisima*) and Russian olive (*Eleagnus angustifiolia*) are the
primary invasive species along riparian areas. Both non-native tree
species are increasing throughout the West and are able to effectively
displace native riparian communities, creating monocultures in formerly
biologically diverse habitats. ZION has actively controlled these
species for the past two decades.

In disturbed areas, Scotch thistle (*Onopordum acanthium*), bull thistle
(*Cirsium vulgare*), and white top (*Cardaria draba*) are most commonly
seen along trails in the front and backcountry. ZION staff work
diligently with hundreds of volunteers to control these invasive weeds.
Currently, knapweed (*Centaurea* spp.) and yellow starthistle
(*Centaurea solstitialis*) occur in only small infestations, but are of
great potential threat. Known occurrences of non-native species would be
controlled each growing season and new populations would be detected as
early as possible.

Covering immense areas throughout the Intermountain West, cheatgrass
(*Bromus tectorum*) and ripgut brome (*Bromus diandrus*) have also
succeeded in ZION, infesting over 8,000 acres mainly in the
frontcountry. Because these exotic annuals germinate in the fall or
winter, they effectively outpace native bunch grasses that emerge weeks
or months later.

Front of map G north

Back of map G north

Front of map G south

Back of map G south

  --------------- -------------------------------------------------------------
  **Vegetation    
  Impact          
  Threshold       
  Definitions**   

  Negligible      No native vegetation would be affected, or some individual
                  native plants could be affected as a result of the
                  alternative, but there would be no effect on native species
                  populations. The effects would be on a small scale.

  Minor           The alternative would temporarily affect some individual
                  native plants and would also affect a relatively minor
                  portion of that species' population. Mitigation to offset
                  adverse effects could be required and would be effective.

  Moderate        The alternative would affect some individual native plants
                  and would also affect a sizeable segment of the species'
                  population over a relatively large area. Mitigation to offset
                  adverse effects could be extensive, but would likely be
                  successful.

  Major           The alternative would have a considerable affect on native
                  plant populations and would affect a relatively large area in
                  and outside of the park. Mitigation measures to offset the
                  adverse effects would be required and would be extensive;
                  success of the mitigation measures would not be guaranteed.

  Duration        Short-term -- recovers in less than three years

                  Long-term -- requires more than three years to recover

  Area of         The area of analysis is referred to as the "study area" and
  Analysis        includes recommended wilderness, and portions of the Pristine
                  and Primitive Zones that fall outside of the recommended
                  wilderness.
  --------------- -------------------------------------------------------------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488654 .anchor}**Effects of Alternative A -- No
Action**

Visitation in the backcountry is expected to continue to increase under
Alternative A. Activities such as hiking, canyoneering, and camping
could continue to impact vegetation. These activities could result in
informal trails that become established and are typically devoid of
vegetation. Widening and braiding of trails could also occur
contributing to a decrease in vegetation cover. An indirect impact of
vegetation loss is increased soil erosion, which could cause increases
in runoff and negatively affect water quality. Stock use in the study
area would also contribute to native vegetation loss from trampling
and/or inadvertent foraging. Pack animals can contribute to the
introduction and spread of exotic weed species. Under Alternative A,
stock must be fed certified weed-free 24 hours prior to entering the
park and while they are in the park which should limit the spread of
non-native plant species. Because of these factors any adverse impacts
to vegetation under Alternative A would be expected to be moderate and
could potentially be long-term depending on the type of vegetation
community affected.

**Cumulative Effects**

Cumulative impacts to vegetation would result from the backcountry
management actions described in Alternative A, combined with other
activities in and around the park that affect vegetation.

Wildland fire management activities could contribute to the loss of
native vegetation through the treatment of hazard fuels and from
wildland or management ignited fire. Some native vegetation types in
ZION are not adapted to fire and when they burn or are even disturbed
through hazard fuels treatments, the native vegetation does not
regenerate and is replaced by non-native annual forbs and grasses.

Development of private lands adjacent to the park can pose a threat to
native vegetation by increasing the potential for visitor use in areas
that currently receive very little visitor use. The cumulative impacts
to vegetation from these activities would be short- to long-term --
depending on vegetation type, adverse, and minor to moderate.

Yearly park-administered exotic plant monitoring and control could have
moderate long-term beneficial cumulative impacts to vegetation.

**Conclusion**

Under Alternative A, adverse impacts could include the creation informal
trails that become established and are typically devoid of vegetation.
Widening and braiding of trails could also occur contributing to a
decrease in vegetation cover. An indirect impact of vegetation loss is
increased soil erosion, which could cause increases in runoff and
negatively affect water quality. Because of these factors adverse
impacts to vegetation under Alternative A would be moderate and could
potentially be long-term depending on the type of vegetation community
affected.

Cumulative impacts to vegetation would be short- to long-term --
depending on vegetation type, adverse, and minor to moderate. Yearly
park-administered exotic plant monitoring and control could have
moderate long-term beneficial cumulative impacts to vegetation.

**Impairment Analysis**

Because there would be no major, adverse impacts to vegetation whose
conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in
the establishing legislation of the park; (2) key to the natural or
cultural integrity of the park; or (3) identified as a goal in the
park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no
impairment of the vegetation in the study area.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488655 .anchor}**Effects of Alternative B --
Proposed Action**

Visitation in the backcountry is expected to increase under Alternative
B. Monitoring using the resource indicators and standards identified in
this alternative would decrease the potential for long-term impacts to
vegetation through the implementation of the management options designed
to mitigate effects. These management options include, but are not
limited to campsite obliteration, temporary closures of areas with
considerable vegetation loss, and closures of excess routes. Although
the monitoring strategies do not specifically address the potential
spread of non-native plant species, the soil and vegetation monitoring
identified in this alternative and the weed-free feed requirement for
stock would help mitigate the spread of non-native plants. Alternative B
also limits visitor group size and stock use in certain areas, which
could reduce overall vegetation loss from trampling and trail widening.
Therefore impacts to vegetation would be adverse, minor and short-term.

**Cumulative Effects**

Cumulative impacts to vegetation would result from the backcountry
management actions described in Alternative B, combined with other
activities in and around the park that affect vegetation.

Wildland fire management activities could contribute to the loss of
native vegetation through the treatment of hazard fuels and from
wildland or management ignited fire. Some native vegetation types in
ZION are not adapted to fire and when they burn or even disturbed
through hazard fuels treatments, the native vegetation does not
regenerate and is replaced by non-native annual forbs and grasses.

Development of private lands adjacent to the park can pose a threat to
native vegetation by increasing the potential for visitor use in areas
that currently receive very little visitor use. The cumulative impacts
to vegetation from these activities would be short- to long-term --
depending on vegetation type, adverse, and minor to moderate.

Yearly park-administered exotic plant monitoring and control could have
moderate long-term, beneficial cumulative impacts to vegetation.

**Conclusion**

Under Alternative B, adverse impacts to vegetation would be minor
because soils and vegetation would be regularly monitored and when
thresholds are met, as identified by the monitoring program, management
actions would be implemented to mitigate impacts. The duration of
impacts from vegetation loss would be dependent on the recovery rate of
the vegetation community affected. Because of monitoring and the
identification of management actions to mitigate adverse effects, any
impacts to vegetation would likely be short-term.

Cumulative impacts to vegetation would be short- to long-term --
depending on vegetation type, adverse, and minor to moderate. Yearly
park-administered exotic plant monitoring and control could have
moderate long-term, beneficial cumulative impacts to vegetation.

**Impairment Analysis**

Because there would be no major, adverse impacts to vegetation whose
conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in
the establishing legislation of the park; (2) key to the natural or
cultural integrity of the park; or (3) identified as a goal in the
park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no
impairment of the park's vegetation.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488656 .anchor}**Soils**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488657 .anchor}**Affected Environment**

With very few exceptions, soils in the park are young, very well
drained, easily eroded, and low in fertility (USDA, SCS, 1977). Rock and
stony rock lands make up half of the 36 soil complexes that occur in the
park. Over 80 percent of the soils have low productivity or high erosion
potential. Exposures of slickrock, where little soil exists at all or
exists only in small pockets, cover large areas of the park. Vegetation
in these areas is typically sparse, though the variety of plant species
is often great and includes a number of endemic species. Some plants
also take advantage of the additional water running off the slickrock to
grow at lower elevations than would otherwise be expected.

Shallow soils are more extensive on mesa tops, slopes, and terraces.
These areas are often very gravelly or rocky. Some development of soil
horizons and structure may occur on flatter slopes. Though soils on
steep slopes are often little more than ground bedrock with very little
soil development and a large proportion of gravel and boulders, they can
still support a moderate density and diversity of plants.

Deep soils are typically confined to river terraces and floodplains, as
well as isolated pockets on some of the flatter upland terraces. These
are some of the park's most productive soils, particularly where watered
by rivers and streams. Older and higher river terraces are more arid and
prone to erosion from natural incision and human causes.

Very few small, isolated pockets of poorly drained, or organic rich
soils exist in natural wetlands, artificial impoundments, and areas
where large landslides have impounded natural streams. These areas are
widely scattered and are generally less than 1 acre in size.

The degree of litter and plant cover varies directly with available
moisture from precipitation, which is closely tied to elevation and
aspect. Soils at high elevations, which receive more precipitation, tend
to have better litter cover and are therefore more resistant to erosion.
At drier low elevations, the amount of soil surface unprotected by
litter or plant cover will often exceed 50 percent. Similarly, soils on
north exposures are cooler, moister and maintain greater vegetative and
litter cover than those on south exposures. This characteristic common
to all environments is exaggerated in ZION due to the deep narrow
canyons. In soils with a high quantity of coarse rock fragments, gravel
and rock on the soil surface provide some protection from raindrop
impact and resistance to wind and water erosion.

ZION also contains notable amounts of biological soil crusts where the
soil surface is bound together by a community of algae, fungi, lichen,
and other microorganisms. This soft crust greatly increases the soil's
ability to capture and hold water, fix nitrogen from the atmosphere, and
resist erosion from wind, raindrop impact and flowing water (Belnap et.
al., 2001). These soils are sensitive to compression, especially when
the crusts are dry and brittle. The time necessary for recovery depends
on the magnitude and frequency of disturbance and the weather
conditions. Minor disturbances can recover function within a few storm
cycles, while areas of extensive disturbance can take several decades to
fully recover. Where crusts are impacted by footsteps such as those
caused by walking off-trail in the backcountry, the function of the
crust may recover relatively quickly, but the altered appearance can
remain years longer and can remain an attractive nuisance for subsequent
hikers.

ZION does not have detailed field surveys to determine the distribution
of biological soil crusts. However, these crusts are typically
associated with open canopies and sandy soil usually found in
pinyon/juniper woodlands and desert-shrub communities.

  --------------- -------------------------------------------------------------
  **Soils Impact  
  Threshold       
  Definitions**   

  Negligible      Soils would not be affected or the effects to soils would be
                  below or at the lower levels of detection. Any effects to
                  soil productivity or fertility would be slight.

  Minor           The effects to soils would be detectable. Effects to soil
                  productivity or fertility would be small, as would the area
                  affected. If mitigation were needed to offset adverse
                  effects, it would be relatively simple to implement and
                  likely successful.

  Moderate        The effect on soil productivity or fertility would be readily
                  apparent and result in a change to the soil character over a
                  relatively wide area. Mitigation measures would probably be
                  necessary to offset adverse effects and would likely be
                  successful.

  Major           The effect on soil productivity or fertility would be readily
                  apparent and would substantially change the character of the
                  soils over a large area in and outside of the park.
                  Mitigation measures to offset adverse effects would be needed
                  and would be extensive; their success could not be
                  guaranteed.

  Duration        Short-term -- recovers in less than three years

                  Long-term -- requires more than three years to recover

  Area of         The area of analysis is referred to as the "study area" and
  Analysis        includes recommended wilderness, and portions of the Pristine
                  and Primitive Zones that fall outside of the recommended
                  wilderness.
  --------------- -------------------------------------------------------------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488658 .anchor}**Effects of Alternative A -- No
Action**

Alternative A would continue the current pattern of soil disturbance
within the study area. Impacts to soils would include the compaction
and/or accelerated erosion of soils from use of trails by visitors and
stock animals, camping in designated and non-designated campsites, and
off-trail use in some areas.

The type, intensity, and duration of impacts to soils would be directly
related to the type, level, and duration of visitor use and the type of
management practices for each management zone. For example, designated
trails, paths, and campsites help to limit the area affected by visitor
and stock use. Footsteps and camping activities contribute to soil
compaction, especially on designated trails or in designated campsites
where there is repeated use. The effects of footsteps on designated
trails and at designated campsites would have a minor, adverse,
long-term effect on soils because the impacts are confined to a specific
(designated) area. The use of non-designated routes and camping areas
would be expected to have a greater impact since the area affected would
be more widespread. So these areas would have a moderate, adverse,
long-term impact on soils. A higher degree of impact would be expected
from larger groups, whereas impacts to soils from smaller groups would
likely be less intense.

**Cumulative Effects**

Other activities that would affect soils within the study area include
fire management activities, development of lands bordering the park, and
exotic plant monitoring and control. Overall, the impacts of actions
under Alternative A, when combined with impacts from these other actions
that could affect soils, would result in short- to long-term, minor,
adverse cumulative impacts on soil productivity and stability that would
be reduced over time.

**Conclusion**

The effects of footsteps on designated trails and at designated
campsites would have a minor, adverse, long-term effect on soils because
the impacts would be confined to a specific (designated) area. The use
of non-designated routes and camping areas would be expected to have a
greater impact since the area affected would be more widespread. So
these areas would have a moderate, adverse long-term impact on soils.

Overall, the impacts of actions under Alternative A, when combined with
impacts from these other actions that could affect soils, would result
in short- to long-term, minor, adverse cumulative impacts on soil
productivity and stability that would be reduced over time.

**Impairment Analysis**

Because there would be no major, adverse impacts to soils whose
conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in
the establishing legislation of the park; (2) key to the natural or
cultural integrity of the park; or (3) identified as a goal in the
park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no
impairment of the park's soil resources.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488659 .anchor}**Effects of Alternative B --
Proposed Action**

Impacts to soils from the implementation of Alternative B could include
the compaction and/or accelerated erosion of soils from use of trails by
visitors and stock animals, camping in designated and non-designated
campsites, and off-trail use in some areas.

The type, intensity, and duration of impacts to soils would be directly
related to the type, level, and duration of visitor use and the type of
management practices for each management zone. For example, designated
trails and campsites help to limit the area affected by visitor and
stock use. Restrictions on visitor or stock group size would also help
limit the intensity of impacts to soil. A higher degree of impact would
be expected from larger groups, whereas impacts to soils from smaller
groups would likely be less intense. Monitoring trails, routes, and
campsites would provide the means for managers to identify and mitigate
adverse impacts to soils as outlined in Alternative B. When impacts to
soils are identified management options, as identified in Alternative B,
could be implemented thus reducing adverse impacts. Therefore, the
effects of human and horse use on designated trails and at designated
campsites would have a minor, adverse long-term effect on soils because
the impacts are confined to a specific (designated) area. The use of
non-designated routes and camping areas could be expected to have a
greater impact since the area affected would be more widespread. So
these areas would have a minor to moderate, long-term adverse impact on
soils.

**Cumulative Effects**

Other activities that would affect soils within the study area include
fire management activities, development of lands bordering the park, and
exotic plant monitoring and control. Overall, the impacts of actions
under Alternative B, when combined with impacts from these other actions
that could affect soils, would result in short- to long-term, minor,
adverse cumulative impacts on soil productivity and stability that would
be reduced over time.

**Conclusion**

The effects of human and horse use on designated trails and at
designated campsites would have a minor, adverse long-term effect on
soils because the impacts would be confined to a specific (designated)
area. The use of non-designated routes and camping areas could be
expected to have a greater impact since the area affected would be more
widespread. So these areas would have a minor to moderate, long-term
adverse impact on soils.

Overall, the impacts of actions under Alternative B, when combined with
impacts from these other actions that could affect soils, would result
in short- to long-term, minor, adverse cumulative impacts on soil
productivity and stability that would be reduced over time.

**Impairment Analysis**

Because there would be no major, adverse impacts to soils whose
conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in
the establishing legislation of the park; (2) key to the natural or
cultural integrity of the park; or (3) identified as a goal in the
park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no
impairment of the park's soil resources.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488660 .anchor}**Floodplains**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488661 .anchor}**Affected Environment**

All of the river channels in ZION have floodplain terraces associated
with the wetted channels, though these are generally narrow and often
intermittent along channels due to the steep terrain and narrow canyons.
These floodplains are considered part of the river's active channel in
that it is normal for rivers to repeatedly inundate, scour and deposit
sediment on these lands. Floodplains are essential to natural streams
because they are the means by which large flood flows move through the
river system. They are also some of the most biologically productive
lands due to the availability of water, and the frequency of natural
disturbance. The species diversity is typically much greater than on
adjacent uplands that are much more arid.

Floodplains in ZION's backcountry have not been delineated because no
permanent structures exist or are planned in this area. As a result, a
measure of the acreage of floodplains in ZION is not available. It can
be said that campsites on the floodplains are consistently located above
the bankfull channel (which would flood every 1.5 to 2 years) and are
generally above the level of larger floods with recurrence intervals of
20-50 years.

Floodplain terraces are often selected for campsites due to the
proximity to water, availability of shade from riparian trees and level
land. In many parts of the park they are the only lands that most
campers would consider desirable for camping. Twenty six designated
campsites currently exist in floodplains in the park, and three new
sites are proposed along Coalpits Wash. The number of campsites in
floodplains where at-large camping is permitted is not known.

  --------------- -------------------------------------------------------------
  **Floodplain    
  Impact          
  Threshold       
  Definitions**   

  Negligible      Floodplains would not be affected, or changes would be either
                  non-detectable or if detected, would have effects that would
                  be consid­ered slight, local, and would likely be short-term.

  Minor           Changes in floodplains would be measurable, although the
                  changes would be small, would likely be short-term, and the
                  effects would be localized. No mitigation meas­ure associated
                  with water quality or hydrology would be necessary.

  Moderate        Changes in floodplains would be measurable and long-term but
                  would be relatively local. Mitiga­tion measures associated
                  with water quality or hydrology would be necessary and the
                  measures would likely succeed.

  Major           Changes in floodplains would be readily measurable, would
                  have substantial consequences, and would be noticed on a
                  regional scale. Mitigation measures would be necessary and
                  their success would not be guaranteed.

  Duration        Short-term - recovery will take less than one year

                  Long-term - recovery will take longer than one year

  Area of         The area of analysis is referred to as the "study area" and
  Analysis        includes recommended wilderness, and portions of the Pristine
                  and Primitive Zones that fall outside of the recommended
                  wilderness.
  --------------- -------------------------------------------------------------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488662 .anchor}**Effects of Both Alternative A
and Alternative B**

For this analysis the effects on floodplains would be the same for both
alternatives. This is because no permanent structures are proposed in
floodplains in either alternative.

Although, there are two areas of concern associated with floodplain
resources and potential impacts associated with the actions proposed in
this document. First are safety issues that occur when people camp in
flood hazard areas. Floodplain terraces are often selected for campsites
due to the proximity to water, availability of shade from riparian trees
and level land. Where campers are required to camp in designated sites
in flood hazard areas, it is the responsibility of the NPS to evaluate
the risks involved and take reasonable measures to mitigate these risks.
A formal evaluation of these risks is presented in a Floodplain
Statement of Findings in Appendix F.

The second area of concern is whether the formal and informal use of
campsites constitutes and impact to floodplain function by (1) impeding
water flow during flood events, or (2) disturbing riparian vegetation
and wildlife. In all cases, the modifications used to make campsites is
minimal, consisting primarily of clearing the soil surface of lose rocks
and some dead vegetation. Occasionally some minor vegetation removal
occurs, and some visitors are inclined to arrange small rocks in lines
around their campsites. No cut and fill of the soil surface or other
alterations of topography is made.

In all instances, the minor impacts to the soil surface and vegetation
have no potential to alter floodplain function. Therefore any adverse
impacts to floodplains for both alternatives would be negligible and
short-term.

**Cumulative Effects**

Other activities that could affect floodplains within the study area
include fire management activities, development of lands bordering the
park, and exotic plant monitoring and control. Overall, the impacts of
actions described in either Alternative A or B, when combined with
impacts from these other actions that could affect floodplains, would
result in short-term, minor, adverse cumulative impacts.

**Conclusion**

In all instances, the minor impacts to the soil surface and vegetation
from visitors camping in either designed or non-designated backcountry
campsites would have no potential to alter floodplain function.
Therefore any adverse impacts to floodplains for both alternatives would
be negligible and short-term.

Overall, the impacts of actions described in either Alternative A or B,
when combined with impacts from other actions that could affect
floodplains, would result in short-term, minor, adverse cumulative
impacts.

**Impairment Analysis**

Because there would be no major, adverse impacts to floodplains whose
conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in
the establishing legislation of the park; (2) key to the natural or
cultural integrity of the park; or (3) identified as a goal in the
park's GMP or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no
impairment of the park's floodplains.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488663 .anchor}**CONSULTATION AND
COORDINATION**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488664 .anchor}**Public Involvement Summary**

Public participation is an important part of any planning process. For
this plan/EA process, ZION used several strategies to involve the
public. External scoping was initialed in August 2005 and continued
throughout the planning process. To facilitate public scoping the park:

-   Distributed over 300 scoping newsletters to individuals,
    organizations, and government agencies. The newsletter outlined the
    proposal and described the process for public involvement (Appendix
    D).

-   Posted the newsletter and workshop notices on the ZION Internet
    Homepage.

-   Hosted four public information workshops:

    -   Salt Lake City, Utah, September 8, 2005

    -   Kanab, Utah, September 12, 2005

    -   Springdale, Utah, September 13, 2005

    -   Cedar City, Utah, September 14, 2005

-   Published notices of the planning/EA process and workshop
    information in local newspapers, and on local radio and television
    stations.

The park received 181 scoping comment letters. The general concerns
identified in the letters and areas where those concerns are addresses
in this document are summarized below.

-   Are current daily backcountry use limits for slot canyons
    appropriate? Use limits are discussed on pages 35-41 of this
    document.

    -   The majority stated that limits were too low

-   Are current backcountry group size limits appropriate? Group size
    limits are discussed on pages 35-41 of this document.

    -   The majority stated that existing group size limits are OK, park
        should find ways to encourage smaller groups.

-   Should commercial guiding be allowed in the Primitive Zone?
    Commercial guiding is discussed on pages 43 and 44 and in Appendix
    G.

    -   The majority stated that commercial guiding should not be
        allowed in the backcountry.

-   Does current backcountry management allow for an appropriate level
    of protection for natural and cultural resources? Actions to protect
    natural and cultural resource can be found throughout Alternative B
    beginning on page 29.

    -   Most who commented believe that resources are being protected.

-   What other issues exist concerning backcountry management in ZION?

    -   Some believe that wilderness experience and wilderness values
        are not a priority when visiting ZION (Refer to Alternative B
        beginning on page 29).

    -   Management in the backcountry was overly restrictive (Refer to
        Alternative B beginning on page 29).

    -   Trails need maintaining, especially trails/routes into and out
        of canyons (Mystery, Spry, Keyhole, etc.) (Refer to Alternative
        B beginning on page 29).

    -   Permits system is too difficult to use, that permits are too
        expensive; there should be self-serve kiosks for obtaining
        permits. While adjustments to the permit system do not need this
        document to be accomplished, a discussion of the permit system
        can be found on pages 45 and 46.

**Coordination with Native American Indian Tribes, SHPO, and USFWS**

**National Historic Preservation Act.** In accordance with the National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), letters requesting tribal consultation
(Appendix D) were mailed in August 2005 to the following tribes: Hopi
Tribe, Kaibab Paiute Tribe, Moapa Band Paiute Tribe, Northern Ute Tribe,
Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, Southern Ute, Ute Mountain Ute, White Mesa
Ute, Navajo Tribe, Skull Valley Goshute, Goshute Indian Tribe, Pueblo of
Zuni, and San Juan Southern Ute. We did not receive any scoping comments
from any Native American Indian tribe.

**State Historic Preservation Office.** The scoping comment request
letter was sent to the SHPO in August 2005 (Appendix D). No comments
were received. A copy of this document will be sent to the Utah SHPO for
review and comment as part of the Section 106 consultation process.

**U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.** Park staff contacted the USFWS by
letter on August 23, 2005. A reply identifying endangered and threatened
species in and around the park was received on August 31, 2005. This
correspondence can be found in Appendix E. A copy of this document will
be sent to the USFWS for review and comment.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488665 .anchor}**List of Preparers**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Name**         **Title**                      **EA Contribution**
  ---------------- ------------------------------ -----------------------
  Zion National                                   
  Park                                            

  Jock Whitworth   Superintendent                 Review and Approval

  Raymond O'Neil   Plateau District Ranger        Team Leader

  Chuck Passek     Chief Ranger (former)          Review

  Cody Cole        Plateau Law Enforcement Ranger Review

  Annette          Backcountry Permit Supervisor  Review
  Werederich                                      

  Cindy Purcell    Plateau District Ranger        Team Leader (former)
                   (former)                       

  Fred Hoeger      Kolob District Ranger          Review

  Kevin Killian    Canyon District Law            Review
                   Enforcement Ranger             

  Tom Haraden      Assistant Chief Naturalist     Visitor Services

  Sarah Horton     Archeologist                   Cultural Resources

  Cheryl Decker    Vegetation Specialist          Vegetation

  David Sharrow    Hydrologist                    Water, Soils,
                                                  Floodplains

  Claire Crow      Wildlife Biologist             Wildlife

  Kelly Fuhrmann   Fire Ecologist                 Fire Management

  Kezia Nielsen    Environmental Protection       Planning, NEPA
                   Specialist                     

  Jack Burns       Concession Management          Review
                   Specialist                     

  National Park                                   
  Service                                         
  Intermountain                                   
  Regional Office                                 

  Cheryl Eckhardt  NEPA/Section 106 Specialist    Review

  SWCA                                            
  Environmental                                   
  Consultants                                     

  Steve Kandell    Senior Environmental Planer    Environmental
                                                  Consequences (EC) --
                                                  Review

  Marcie Bidwell   Environmental Planner          EC -- Wilderness &
                                                  Visitor Use &
                                                  Experience

  Larry Semo       Wildlife Biologist             EC -- Threatened,
                                                  Endangered & Sensitive
                                                  Plants & Animals

  Pate Castiglia   Geologist                      EC -- Soils

  Adrian Hogel     Ecologist                      EC -- Vegetation
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488666 .anchor}**List of Environmental
Assessment Recipients**

**Federal Agencies**

BLM Kanab Field Office

BLM St. George Field Office

BLM Utah State Office

NPS Utah State Coordinator

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

**State & Local Agencies & Governments**

Five County Association of Governments

Iron County Commissioners

Kane County Commissioners

Mayor of Rockville, UT

Mayor of Springdale, UT

Mayor of Virgin, UT

Springdale Town Manager

Utah State Clearinghouse

Utah State Historic Preservation Officer

Washington County Commissioners

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488667 .anchor}**REFERENCES**

Aikens, C. 1965. Excavations in Southwest Utah. University of Utah
Anthropological Papers. No. 76.

Atwood, D., J. Holland, R. Bolander, B. Franklin, D. House, L.
Armstrong, K. Thorne and L. England. 1991. Utah: Threatened, Endangered,
and Sensitive Plant Field Guide.

Belnap, Jayne, Julie H. Kaltenecker, Roger Rosentreter, John Williams,
Steve Leonard and David Eldridge. 2001. Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology
and Management. U. S. Bureau of Land Management, National Science and
Technology Center, Technical Reference 1730-2, Denver, Colorado.

Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System. 2004.

Conner, Melissa A. and Susan M. Vetter. 1986. Archaeological
Investigations at Zion National Park. Midwest Archaeological Center
Occasional Studies in Anthropology, No. 19. National Park Service,
Lincoln, Nebraska.

Executive Office of the President, Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ). 1978. Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of
the National Environmental Quality Act. Code of Federal Regulations
Title 40, Parts 1500-1508. Washington, D.C.

Executive Office of the President, CEQ. 1981. Forty most asked questions
concerning CEQ's National Environmental Quality Act regulations (40 CFR
1500-1508). Federal Register 46 (55):18026-18038.

Manning, Robert E., Freimund, Wayne A., Marion, Jeffery L. 2004.
Research to Support Application of the Visitor Experience and Resource
Protection Framework to Backcountry Planning at Zion National Park --
Final Report. June 30, 2004.

Marion, Jeffery L. 2003. Trail Monitoring Manual Zion National Park
version 4/03. USDI, U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research
Canter, Virginia Tech/Department of Forestry, Blacksburg, Virginia.

Marion, Jeffery L. 2002. Campsite Monitoring Manual Zion National Park
version 11/1/02. USDI, U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife
Research Canter, Virginia Tech/Department of Forestry, Blacksburg,
Virginia.

Schroeder, Albert H. 1955. Archaeology of Zion Park. University of Utah
Anthropological Papers No. 22.

Stoffle, R.W., D.E. Austin, D.B. Halmo, and A.M. Phillips III. 1995.
Ethnographic Overview and Assessment: Zion National Park, Utah and Pipe
Spring National Monument, Arizona. Ms. on file, Rocky Mountain Regional
Office, National Park Service, Denver, Colorado and Zion National Park,
Springdale, Utah.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Soil Conservation
Service. 1977. Soil Survey of Washington County Area, Utah.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Intermountain
Region; U. S. Department of the Interior: National Park Service, Bureau
of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service; Utah Natural Heritage
Program: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8; Navajo Nation
Natural Heritage Program; Skull Valley Goshute Tribe. 1991. Utah
Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive plant Field Guide.

United States Department of Commerce. Economics and Statistics
Administration. 2000. U.S. Census Bureau 2000.

United States Department of the Interior (USDI), Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS). 1994. Desert Tortoise (Mojave population) Recovery
Plan. USFWS, Portland, Oregon.

USDI, USFWS. 1995a. Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl: Vol. 1.
Albuquerque, New Mexico.

USDI, USFWS. 1995b. Recovery Plan for the Virgin River Fishes. USFWS,
Region 6, Denver Colorado.

USDI, USFWS. 1996. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of California
Condors in Northern Arizona; Final Rule; 50 CFR Part 17, October 16,
1996.

USDI, USFWS. 2001. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Determination of Endangered Status for *Astragalus holmgreniorum*
(Holmgren milk-vetch) and *Astragalus ampullarioides* (Shivwits
milk-vetch) Final Rule. Federal Register, Volume 66, No. 189, pages
49560-49567.

USDI, USFWS. 2004. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final
Designation of Critical Habitat for Mexican Spotted Owl; Final Rule; 50
CFR Part 17, August 31, 2004.

USDI, USFWS. 2006. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Designation of Critical Habitat for *Astragalus ampullarioides*
(Shivwits milk-vetch) and *Astragalas holmgreniorum* (Holmgren
milk-vetch); Final Rule; 50 CFR Part 17, December 27, 2006.

United States Department of the Interior (USDI), National Park Service
(NPS). 1987. Trail Standards Guide for Zion National Park.

USDI, NPS. 1999. Zion National Park. Wildlife monitoring reports.

USDI, NPS. 2001a. Zion National Park. Peregrine falcon management and
monitoring information.

USDI, NPS. 2001b. Zion National Park. General Management Plan.

USDI, NPS. 2002. Zion National Park. Statement for Management.

USDI, NPS. 2005. Zion National Park. Fire Management Plan.

USDI, NPS. 2006. Management Policies 2006. Washington, D.C.

USDI, NPS. 2006. 1998-2006 Zion National Park Backcountry Statistics.

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2000. Desert Tortoise
(Gopherus agassizii) Distribution Survey, Zion National Park.
Publication Number 00-36.

UDWR. 2003. Baseline Virgin Spinedace (Lepidomeda mollispinis
mollispinis) Population Demographics in an Area Proposed for Floodplain
Restoration and a Reference Reach, North Fork of the Virgin River, Zion
National Park, Fall 2002.

Wauer, Roland. 1997. Birds of Zion National Park and Vicinity. Utah
State University. Logan, Utah.

Welsh, Stanley L. 1988. Zion National Park threatened and endangered and
exotic plant surveys; final report 1987-1988. Endangered Plant Studies,
Inc. Orem, Utah.

Welsh, S.L., D.N. Atwood, S. Goodrich and L. Higgins. 1993. A Utah
Flora. Brigham Young University. Provo, Utah.

Welsh, S.L., D.N. Atwood, and J.L. Reveal. 1975. Endangered, threatened,
extinct, endemic, and rare or restricted Utah vascular plants. Great
Basin Naturalist. Volume: 35, Issue: 4.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc166488668 .anchor}**GLOSSARY**

**Alternatives --** As related to the National Environmental Policy Act
process, alternatives are a range of options that address the purpose of
the proposed action. They describe alternative ways to address a problem
or issue. Alternatives must meet the stated objectives and provide a
reasonable means to address the problem or issue.

**Anchor --** Point where rope is fixed to the rock.

**Annual Plant** -- A plant growing from seed, producing flowers and
seeds, and dying the same year.

**Artifact --** Any object made, modified or used by humans.

**Assessment of Effect --** Assessment and documentation of the proposed
actions on cultural resources.

**At-Large-Camping --** Visitors can camp anywhere they choose in the
backcountry with the exception of: within 1-mile of any road, within
¼-mile of a spring, within ¼-mile of the park boundary, within site of
trails, under rock overhangs, or on private inholdings.

**Backcountry** -- Zion backcountry constitutes most of the undeveloped
area of the park, where no roads or substantial human-made structures
exist. Much of Zion's backcountry, however, does contain maintained
trails. Primary backcountry travel is by foot, and on specified trails,
by horseback. Camping is regulated in the backcountry: in some areas
camping is allowed nearly anywhere, while in other areas camping is only
permitted in designated campsites. In the backcountry visitors have
opportunities to experience a natural landscape, solitude, and natural
quiet.

**Biological Soil Crusts** -- Where the soil surface is bound together
by a community of organisms that can include cyanobacteria, algae,
fungi, mosses and lichens. These create a soft crust at the soil surface
that is resistant to raindrop impact, erosion from wind and water, and
its roughness greatly increase the soil's ability to capture and hold
water.

**Bivouac --** An uncomfortable sleeping place in the middle of a
climbing route.

**Bolts --** Stout metal pin drilled in the rock of step routes to
provide permanent protection for climbers and canyoneers.

**Cairn --** A pile of stones set up as a landmark or to mark a route,
trail or boundary.

**Campsite --** An area where visitors camp; can be designated. The area
is obvious as a campsite; the vegetative cover is lost and/or the
organic letter is pulverized in the primary use area.

**Canadian Life Zone --** The fir forest of this life zone is dominated
by Douglas fir. White fir is also characteristic. In some places pines
(other than Ponderosa) are also common. Deciduous broadleaf trees such
as Gambel oak, and quaking aspen can also be found here. The elevation
of the zone ranges from 7,500 to 9,500 feet; and precipitation from 25
to 30 inches.

**Candidate Species --** A plant or animal species for which the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service or National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Fisheries has on file sufficient information on
biological vulnerability and threats to support a proposal to list as
endangered or threatened.

**Canyoneering** -- Similar to mountaineering in that it is much more
difficult than mere backpacking or hiking. Canyoneering requires hiking,
repelling, climbing, and swimming with your gear through remote
generally hard to access canyons. In ZION, permits are issued for
canyoneering routes requiring the use of rappelling equipment.

**Chalk --** Powdered carbonate of magnesia used by climbers to help
hands adhere to the rock.

**Clean Climbing --** Aid climbing without hammering or to remove
protection from a route usually by the climber following.

**Colorado Plateau --** Region encompassing the much of the eastern half
of Utah. The area is characterized by a thick sequence of largely nearly
flat-lying sedimentary rocks that are eroded into picturesque buttes,
mesas, and deep, narrow canyons.

**Commercial Use --** In the backcountry these activities include guide
services for hiking, outfitted horseback use, mountain climbing,
canyoneering and other similar activities. Where allowed, a permit is
required to perform such services.

**Critical Habitat --** Specific geographic areas, whether occupied by a
listed species or not, that are essential for its conservation and that
have been formally designated by rule published in the Federal Register.

**Cultural Resource --** Aspects of a cultural system that are valued by
or significantly representative of a cultural or that contain
significant information about a cultural. They may be a tangible entity
or a cultural practice.

**Cumulative Impacts** -- The impacts of cumulative actions - includes
impacts of actions in the past, the present, and the reasonable
foreseeable future.

**Day Use --** Frontcountry or backcountry use that does not require an
overnight stay. Activities could include hiking, canyoneering, climbing,
sightseeing, wildlife viewing, cross country skiing, etc.

**Direct Effect** -- An impact that occurs as a result of the proposed
action or alternative in the same place and at the same time as the
action.

**Endangered Species --** An animal or plant species in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

**Endemic Species --** A species native and confined to a certain
region; generally used for species with comparatively restricted
distribution.

**Environmental Assessment** -- Environmental assessments were
authorized by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. They
are concise, analytical documents prepared with public participation
that determine if an Environmental Impact Statement is needed for a
particular project or action. If an environmental assessment determines
an environmental impact statement is not needed, the environmental
impact statement becomes the document allowing agency compliance with
NEPA requirements.

**Environmental Impact Statement** -- Environmental impact statements
were authorized by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969.
Prepared with public participation, they assist decision makers by
providing information, analysis and an array of action alternatives,
allowing managers to see the probable effects of decisions on the
environment. Generally, environmental impact statements are written for
large-scale actions or geographical areas.

**Ephemeral Streams --** A waterbody that only exists for a very short
time following precipitation or snowmelt.

**Erosion --** The group of natural or human caused processes by which
material is worn away from the earth's surface.

**Ethnographic Resources** -- These resources have importance to
American Indians and descendants of early pioneers and may include
archaeological sites, geographic areas, or natural resources such as
springs/seeps, vegetation, wildlife, or mineral deposits.

**Eyrie --** The lofty nest of a bird of prey (such as a hawk or eagle).

**Fire Management Plan (FMP)** -- A strategic plan that defines a
program to manage wildland and prescribed fires and documents the Fire
Management Program in the approved land use plan. The plan is
supplemented by operational plans such as preparedness plans, preplanned
dispatch plans, prescribed fire plans and prevention plans.

**Fire Management Unit (FMU)** -- Any land management area definable by
objectives, topographic features, access, values-to-be-protected,
political boundaries, fuel types, or substantial fire regimes, etc.,
that sets it apart from management characteristics of an adjacent unit.
FMUs are delineated in Fire Management Plans (FMP). These units may have
dominant management objectives and pre-selected strategies assigned to
accomplish these objectives.

**Flash Flood** -- A flood that arrives with such rapidity that escape
is difficult or impossible.

**Floodplain** -- Part of a river channel that is inundated only during
time of high flow. A 100-year floodplain is the area inundated by a
flood that has a 1% chance of occurring in any given year, or occurs on
average once every 100 years. Floods of this magnitude occur frequently
enough to pose a serious threat to facilities and people.

**Frontcountry --** Areas within ZION where visitors have structured
opportunities to enjoy and learn about the park, usually by means of
motorized transport on roads. The frontcountry also includes
campgrounds, picnic areas, popular trails, the Visitor Center and
Museum.

**Great Basin --** Region encompassing the much of the western half of
Utah. Characterized by steep, narrow, north-trending mountain ranges
separated by wide, flat sediment filled valleys.

**Habitat --** The place or environment where a plant or animal
naturally lives and grows (a group of particular environmental
conditions).

**Hanging Gardens --** Usually found along rock walls where water seeps
through cracks in the rock. The water creates an alcove and deposits
sediment on or below the wall. Some plants use these sediment deposits
and water to grow.

**Herbicide** -- Any chemical substance used to control plant growth.

**Impact Topics** -- Natural, cultural, or socioeconomic resources that
would be affected by the implementation of the proposed action or
alternatives. The magnitude, duration, and timing of the effect to each
of these resources are evaluated in the impact section of the
environmental assessment.

**Impairment --** An impact that, in the professional judgment of the
responsible NPS manager, would harm the integrity of park resources and
values, including the opportunities that otherwise would be present for
the enjoyment of those resources or values.

**Indirect Impact** -- An effect that is caused by an action but is
later in time and further removed in distance but is still reasonably
foreseeable.

**Inholding** -- Tracts of land in private ownership within the boundary
of the park. These were in private ownership before designation of park
lands in that area, and retain preexisting property rights and land
uses.

**Issue(s)** -- In NEPA, issues are environmental, social, and economic
problems or effects that may occur of the proposed action or
alternatives (including no action) are implemented or continue to be
implemented.

**Litter** -- Top layer of the forest, scrubland, or grassland floor,
directly above the fermentation layer composed of loose debris of dead
sticks, branches, twigs, and recently fallen leaves or needles, little
altered in structure by decomposition.

**Lower Sonoran Life Zone --** The vegetation of this life zone
corresponds with hot deserts of the southwestern United States. Desert
shrubs and succulents occur at elevations from 100 to 4000 feet above
sea level. Total annual precipitation averages 10 inches or less.

**Management Zones** -- Identify how different areas of the park will be
managed to achieve a combination of desired conditions. Each zone
represents a unique combination of physical, biological, social, and
managerial conditions.

**Mesa** -- A flat-topped mountain or plateau bounded on at least one
side by a steep cliff.

**Mesic --** Pertaining to, or adapted to an environment having a
balanced supply of moisture.

**Mitigation --** A modification of the proposal or alternative that
lessens the intensity of its impact on a particular resource.

**Montane --** Pertaining to, growing in, or inhabiting mountainous
regions.

**National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)** -- NEPA is the basic
national law for protection of the environment, passed by Congress in
1969. It sets policy and procedures for environmental protection, and
authorizes Environmental Impact Statements and Environmental Assessments
to be used as analytical tools to help federal managers make decisions.

**Natural Sound and Soundscape** -- Any sounds produced by nature, such
as the wind in the trees, songs of birds, flow of water in rivers and
streams, etc. Unnatural sound would include any sounds produced by
people or their devices, such as human voices, vehicles, and motorized
tools.

**Non-native Plant** -- A plant that is not native to the area, exotic,
noxious.

**Perennial Plant** -- Plants living more than two years.

**Perennial Stream --** A stream that is active the entire year -- has
water year-round.

**Permit --** Is issued by the Superintendent to authorize an otherwise
prohibited or restricted activity or impose a public use limit.

**Piton --** A metal spike or peg of various shapes and configuration
that can be hammered into the rock to support a belay. Rarely used in
climbing anymore due to damage they cause to the rock.

**Plateau** -- An elevated, relatively flat region commonly limited on
at least one side by an abrupt decent to lower land.

**Potential Wilderness --** A wilderness study may identify lands that
are surrounded by or adjacent to lands proposed for wilderness
designation but that do not themselves qualify for immediate designation
due to temporary nonconforming or incompatible conditions. The
wilderness recommendation forwarded to the Congress by the President may
identify these lands as "potential" wilderness for future designation as
wilderness when the nonconforming use has been removed or eliminated.

**Prehistoric --** The period of time before written records; the
absolute date for the prehistoric period varies from place to place.

**Prescribed Fire** -- Any fire ignited by management actions to meet
specific objectives. A written, approved prescribed fire plan must
exist, and NEPA requirements must be met, prior to ignition. This term
replaces management ignited prescribed fire.

**Primitive --** Of or existing in the beginning or the earliest times
or ages; ancient; original; crude; simple; rough; uncivilized.

**Recommended Wilderness --** Lands that have been identified, through a
wilderness study, as suitable for inclusion in the national wilderness
preservation system. The NPS has recommended these lands as suitable for
inclusion to the Secretary of the Interior, who forwarded the
recommendation to the President, who then forwarded the recommendation
to Congress.

**Recovery Plan --** A document drafted for the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, or
other knowledgeable individual or group that serves as a guide for
activities to be undertaken by Federal, State or private entities in
helping to recover and conserve endangered and threatened species.

**Research Natural Areas** -- Field ecological areas designated
primarily for research and education and/or to maintain biological
diversity.

**Riparian** -- Adjacent to, or living on, the bank of a river, or
sometimes a lake or pond.

**Route --** A path made by people (or wildlife) walking over the area
repeatedly. A route is not constructed, is usually not marked, and is
usually not maintained.

**Cross Sectional Area --** Measurement of a cross section of trail or
route used to determine the tread incision (how mush of the trail has
eroded away, etc.) and the tread width as part of the *Trail Monitoring
Manual* developed by Dr. Jeffery Marion.

**Scoping** -- Internal NPS decision-making on issues, alternatives,
mitigation measures, the analysis boundary, appropriate level of
documentation, lead and cooperating agency roles, available references
and guidance, defining purpose and need, and so forth. External scoping
is the early involvement of the interested and affected public.

**Seasonal Closure --** Closure of an area for a specific reason during
a specific season, often to protect wildlife (i.e., closing a climbing
route during peregrine falcon nesting March 1 through

**Seep --** A place where water oozes from the ground to form a pool.

**Semi-arid --** A climatic region that receives low annual rainfall.

**Slickrock** -- Flat areas or, more commonly, slopes with large
exposures of bare rock. This is typically on exposures of Navajo
sandstone in Zion.

**Sling --** A length of nylon webbing which is either sewn or tied into
a loop and is used in conjunction with the rope and anchors to provide
protection while rock climbing or canyoneering.

**Slot Canyon --** Narrow and usually deep canyons formed by water. In
ZION they are popular hiking routes that require a level of skill and
equipment to navigate.

**Social Trail --** Trails or routes that are non-designated and
undesirable. They are usually made by visitors' short cutting to
campsites, water sources, etc.

**Solitude --** The state of being solitary, or alone; seclusion,
isolation, or remoteness.

**Sport Climbing --** Climbing routes of gymnastic difficulty, while
protecting oneself by clipping copiously numbered and generously spaced
pre-places protection.

**Talus --** A sloping mass of rocky fragments at the base of a cliff.

**Technical Canyon --** Refer to Slot Canyon.

**Threatened Species --** An animal or plant species likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.

**Trails --** Designated, mapped, and maintained route used by visitors
on foot and sometimes horseback.

**Transition Life Zone --** An open ponderosa pine forest is
characteristic at elevations from 6,000 to 9,000 feet. Total annual
precipitation ranges from 18 to 26 inches.

**Upper Sonoran Life Zone --** A number of communities are
characteristic of this zone that ranges from 3,500 to about 7,000 feet
in elevation. These include a woodlands of oaks, pinyon pine, and/or
juniper; chaparral of scrub oaks, manzanita, and mountain mahogany;
grassland; and Great Basin desert-scrub with its dominant sagebrush.
Total annual precipitation varies from 8 to slightly more than 20
inches.

**Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) --** A planning and
management framework that focuses on visitor use impacts on the visitor
experience and the park resources. These impacts are primarily
attributed to visitor behavior, use levels, types of use, timing of use,
and location of use.

**Watershed --** The area drained by a river or river system.

**Webbing --** Nylon tape or tubing used for slings.

**Wetlands --** Lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor
determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and
animal communities in the soil and on the surface. Wetlands vary widely
because of regional and local differences in soils, topography, climate,
hydrology, water chemistry, vegetation, and other factors, including
human disturbance.

**Wilderness -- (Definition from the Wilderness Act)** A wilderness, in
contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the
landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its
community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor
who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in
this chapter an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval
character and influence, without permanent improvements or human
habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural
conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected
primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man\'s work
substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for
solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at
least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make
practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4)
may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of
scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.

**Wildland** -- Any natural landscape not maintained for buildings,
road, fence or other human development.

**Wildland Fire** -- Any non-structural fire, other than a prescribed
fire, that occurs in wildland. This term encompasses fire previously
called both wildland fire and prescribed natural fire.