#### FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

#### 

#### Development of the Sleeping Rainbow Ranch as an Educational Facility: Environmental Assessment and General Management Plan Amendment

# Capitol Reef National Park • Utah

#### 

**SUMMARY**

The National Park Service at Capitol Reef National Park will implement
The Proposed Action (Preferred), demolishing and replacing existing
buildings and utilities on the mesa top and constructing additional
facilities for use as a year-round educational property, as analyzed in
the "Development of the Sleeping Rainbow Ranch as an Educational
Facility: Environmental Assessment & General Management Plan Amendment".

**BACKGROUND**

The National Park Service (NPS) has proposed to develop an educational
and research facility at the Sleeping Rainbow Ranch, a guest ranch that
is no longer in use, in Capitol Reef National Park. The project,
Development of the Sleeping Rainbow Ranch as an educational facility,
would be located on a mesa top in the Pleasant Creek Valley. The
proposal includes razing existing, non-functional buildings of the Ranch
and constructing new buildings and structures to be used as a long-term
educational and research facility. The NPS would retain ownership of the
facility, which would be developed in conjunction with Utah Valley State
College (UVSC). By imparting a heightened awareness of desert ecology to
researchers and students, the Proposed Action would have the potential
to benefit resource management in the Park, while providing
opportunities for environmental education, interpretation, and in-depth
research.

The NPS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in January 2004 that
analyzed the proposed project and its potential to impact park
resources. The EA also served to amend the Capitol Reef National Park
Final General Management Plan, Environmental Impact Statement and
Development Concept Plan (GMP). Concerns identified during scoping and
evaluated in the EA included visitor use and experience, archeological
resources, biotic communities, noise and congestion, soils, visual and
aesthetic resources, and park operations. Impact topics dismissed from
further consideration included threatened, endangered, and candidate
species and species of special concern; water quality, wetlands, and
floodplains; air quality; lightscape management; socioeconomic
environment; Indian trust resources; environmental justice; land use;
prime and unique farmlands; museum collections; ethnographic resources;
cultural landscapes; and historic structures/buildings.

**PRREFERRED ALTERNATIVE**

The Proposed Action would include demolishing and replacing existing
buildings and utilities on the mesa top and constructing additional
facilities for use as a year-round educational site. The buildings would
double the current development footprint from approximately 8,712 ft² to
approximately 17,424 ft². The Project Area is located in Wayne County,
Utah, within the USGS 7.5 minute Golden Throne, Utah quadrangle in
Section 20 of Township 30 South, Range 7 East, SLB&M. The Ranch would
facilitate activities that support Park purposes including education and
research. The NPS and UVSC would use the Facility consistent with NPS
mandates, the GMP, and the purposes established for the Ranch. The Ranch
would not serve as a visitor center for the Park nor provide public
services such as interpretative presentations, general Park information,
or public restrooms. The Ranch would be open only to those individuals
and groups identified as appropriate users by UVSC and the NPS.

Operational goals would include year-round opportunities for groups of
up to 25 persons (including students, faculty, or research scientists)
to participate in multi-day activities with on-site, overnight
accommodations including sleeping quarters, food service, and a
lecture/meeting room. Activities would include field courses,
conferences, workshops, and retreats. Day-use groups of up to 40 persons
would be accommodated, though not simultaneously with overnight groups.

The new buildings would be energy efficient, incorporate the use of
solar power, and be characterized by designs that would be unobtrusive
and blend with the surrounding landscape. New building heights would not
deviate substantially from current building heights. New buildings,
structures, septic systems, and parking areas would be positioned so
that removal of trees would be minimized. All lighting would be directed
downward, and would be shielded to minimize light that would be visible
from the valley floor and to avoid night-sky light pollution. Reflection
from windows visible from the valley floor would be minimized and have
drapes or blinds to reduce the visibility of interior lights from the
surrounding valley. Additionally, existing areas of disturbance would be
reclaimed to restore the ecological integrity and aesthetic value of the
Ranch property.

This action would provide the NPS with additional means of promoting and
upholding its mandate to administer and protect the Park for the
enjoyment of natural, cultural, and scientific resources in a manner
that leaves these resources unimpaired. Using the Ranch to facilitate
educational and research programs would provide opportunities for
environmental education, interpretation, and in-depth research at a
permanent facility. By providing a heightened awareness of desert
ecology to researchers and students, the action would also have the
potential to benefit resource management in the Park. Specifically, the
facility would complement the Park's educational outreach initiatives by
providing activities, programs, media, and services to encourage student
understanding of the geologic, natural, and cultural aspects of the
region. Modifications to the Ranch property resulting in the development
of an educational center are desirable to fulfill the direction outlined
in the Park\'s GMP.

####### ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Under the No Action alternative of the January, 2004, Sleeping Rainbow
Ranch EA, no action would be taken to raze existing structures and
either naturalize the site or build a new facility. This alternative
would not result in any construction and its associated ground
disturbance and potential impacts to archeological resources, nor would
it provide the NPS with additional means (i.e., using the Ranch to
facilitate educational and research programs) of promoting and upholding
its mandate to administer and protect the Park for the enjoyment of
natural, cultural, and scientific resources in a manner that leaves
these resources unimpaired.

**ENVIRONMENTALLAY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE**

The Environmentally Preferred Alternative is determined by evaluating
the Proposed Action in terms of CEQ regulations. The CEQ provides that
"the environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative that will
promote the national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA's Section
101:

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

-   Assure for all generations safe, healthful, productive, and
    aesthetically 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; and

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

As evaluated against the CEQ regulations, the Proposed Action is the
Environmentally Preferred Alternative. This no action alternative
represents the current management direction for the Sleeping Rainbow
Ranch. It is based on existing and historic conditions. Although this
alternative would not result in any construction and the associated
ground disturbance or impacts to archeological resources, it would not
provide the NPS with additional means (i.e., using the Ranch to
facilitate educational and research programs) of promoting and upholding
its mandate to administer and protect the Park for the enjoyment of
natural, cultural, and scientific resources in a manner that leaves
these resources unimpaired. Using the Ranch to provide opportunities for
environmental education, interpretation, and in-depth research at a
permanent facility would provide a heightened awareness of desert
ecology to researchers and students; the Proposed Action would thus have
the potential to benefit resource management in the Park. Specifically,
the facility would complement the Park's educational outreach
initiatives by providing activities, programs, media, and services to
encourage student understanding of the geologic, natural, and cultural
aspects of the region.

The environmentally preferred alternative is the proposed alternative
because it surpasses the no action alternative in realizing the *full
range* of national environmental policy goals as stated in §101 of the
National Environmental Policy Act. Although the no action alternatives
achieves a greater level of protection for archeological resources (by
avoiding construction impacts to these resources), through mitigation
the proposed alternative does provide a high level of protection of
natural and cultural resources while concurrently attaining the widest
range of neutral and beneficial uses of the environment without
degradation. The proposed alternative also maintains an environment that
preserves important archeological and natural aspects of the area's
heritage, and integrates resource protection with an appropriate range
of visitor uses.

**WHY THE PROPOSED ACTION WILL NOT HAVE A**

**SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT**

As defined in 40 CFR §1508.27, significance is determined by examining
the following ten (10) criteria:

## Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse 

## 

**Visitor Use and Experience**

## Long and short-term impacts to visitor use and experience throughout the surrounding landscape would be adverse but minor. Noisy, congested conditions on the mesa top and existing roadways would be readily detectable during project construction, and noise associated with use of the facility would impact the quiet experience of visitors hiking in Pleasant Creek Valley. Visitation to the valley would be higher following the construction phase of the project, as Ranch visitors access the surrounding area. 

**Archeological Resources**

Impacts from the Proposed Action to archeological resources would be
moderate and adverse. An intensive level cultural resource inventory
documents that no archeological resources exist on the mesa top.
However, archeological resources do exist within the portion of the
Project Area located on the valley floor surrounding the mesa top, where
installation of a water pipeline would occur. Installation of the
pipeline beneath existing access roads, and across the 50-foot-long
section outside of existing access roads, would bisect an extensive
prehistoric campsite and historic era Euro-American homesite. The
Proposed Action would disturb this eligible site by excavating the
pipeline trench and, therefore, have an adverse impact to the cultural
landscape. Although the Proposed Action would cause an adverse impact,
the excavation route is the least detrimental to the resource.

**Biotic Communities**

Impacts to biotic communities would be minor and adverse in the short
and long term. Although the footprint of the structures on the mesa top
would double in area, thereby permanently eliminating some vegetation
coverage, the entire Project Area has already been disturbed and
reclamation would take place after project implementation. Vegetation
would be restored to a condition better than its current state in the
immediate vicinity of construction activities. Construction noise,
increased vehicle traffic, and human intrusion would likely displace
wildlife from the Project Area and surrounding valley, specifically
bighorn sheep. However, habitat is not limited, and these animals would
be able to access suitable habitat surrounding the Project Area as
desired to avoid human encounters.

**Noise and Congestion**

The main access road would see considerably more traffic than it does at
present, and may require more frequent maintenance. Noise from traffic
(e.g., heavy equipment, propane trucks, and vans) would occur during and
following construction and the mesa top would be the center of activity.
Noise from outdoor lectures, research activities, and general operations
would likely carry to the valley floor. Congestion would increase;
however, the use of vans to transport students would help to minimize
that congestion while optimizing visitation to the Ranch. Certain
restrictions would assist in mitigating noise impacts, including placing
the propane-power generator in a sound-insulated room and equipping it
with a muffler, and placing evaporative coolers on the sides of the
buildings that face the interior of the mesa top. UVSC would provide all
transportation related support for employees and facility users. UVSC is
responsible for providing assistance to employees and facility users in
the event that the access road is impassable due to weather related
problems or seasonal conditions, and UVSC and facility users would abide
by NPS determined road closures. Though it may increase the frequency of
maintenance activities, the NPS would not alter the nature of its road
maintenance operation, nor would it seek to change the current road
condition as a result of the proposed action.

**Soils**

Adverse impacts to soils would be minor. The Proposed Action would
result in approximately 64,496 ft² of temporary soil disturbance and an
additional 12,304 ft² of permanent disturbance. Temporary disturbance
would occur to soils within previously disturbed areas and would include
staging and construction areas. Temporarily disturbed soil would be
reclaimed following construction. The areas proposed for excavation and
construction have already been extensively disturbed by earlier
development and use.

One new trail leading into the valley would be established, and several
pathways would be delineated on the mesa top. Unnecessary, existing
walking trails would be closed and naturalized. Parking areas would be
situated to avoid unnecessary impacts to soils and vegetation.

A beneficial result of establishing a permanent trail system would
include naturalization of the informal trails within the Project Area.
These abandoned trails would be allowed to revegetate naturally, or, if
needed, would be stabilized and revegetated. In addition, new areas of
temporary disturbance associated with the Proposed Action would be
re-contoured and allowed to revegetate or, if required, would be
manually planted with native vegetation, thereby stabilizing soils
surrounding the new development, and reducing potential for soil loss
through erosion. Impacts on soils from the Proposed Action would result
in a net beneficial effect.

**Visual and Aesthetic Resources**

The new buildings and structures on the mesa top would be low in
profile, sited for minimal visibility from the road and valley below,
and would be constructed using colors, materials, and designs that would
be non-reflective and would blend with the natural surroundings. All
lighting associated with facility use would be directed downward.
Accordingly, long-term impacts to visual resources would be minor.
Ultimately, the visual impact of the facility would be less visually
intrusive than the existing structures. In addition, the removal of
seven power poles and an inoperable power line would further enhance the
viewshed of the area

**Park Operations**

## 

Construction and operation of the facility would result in a long-term,
moderate adverse impact upon park operations. Increased travel on the
Ranch road would require more frequent maintenance. During times when
the Ranch is in use, such maintenance needs could be urgent. During the
early stages of facility operation, park management would be in frequent
contact with UVSC staff. Visitor and Resource Protection staff would
likely be called upon occasionally to assist with medical or other
emergency calls. Natural and Cultural Resources staff would be required
to spend time monitoring impacts to resources.

## Degree of effect on public health or safety

> Neither the demolition of existing buildings, the construction of new
> structures, nor the operation of the facility would impact public
> health and safety.

Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to
historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands,
wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas

> Construction activities associated with the Proposed Action would have
> no adverse effect on historic resources, prime farmlands, wetlands,
> wild and scenic rivers, wilderness values, or ecologically critical
> areas.

## Degree to which effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial

> The proposed action was not found to be highly controversial during
> public scoping or during public review of the environmental
> assessment.

### Degree to which the possible effects on the quality of the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks

> There were no highly uncertain, unique or unknown risks identified
> during either preparation of the environmental assessment or the
> public review period.

Degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions
with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a
future consideration

> The preferred alternative neither establishes a National Park Service
> precedent for future actions with significant effects nor represents a
> decision in principle about a future consideration.

Whether the action is related to other actions with individually
insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts

> The preferred alternative will not result in significant cumulative
> impact when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable
> future actions.

Degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites,
highways, structures, or objects listed on National Register of Historic
Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific,
cultural, or historical resources.

> The preferred alternative would have an adverse impact on
> archeological site 42WN1885 and potential indirect adverse effects on
> other historic properties eligible for inclusion in the National
> Register of Historic Places. A memorandum of agreement (MOA) was
> executed between the National Park Service and the Utah State Historic
> Preservation Officer in July, 2004 in accordance with 36 CFR 800.6(b).
> Measures identified in the MOA to minimize or mitigate adverse impacts
> would reduce the intensity of impacts from major to moderate.

## Degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its critical habitat

> The NPS has no record of federally listed species occurring within the
> Project Area, and recent field examinations of the site by Park staff
> confirm that none of the species listed in the EA occur within the
> Project Area. The listed bird species (Mexican spotted owl,
> southwestern willow flycatcher, and bald eagle) have the potential to
> occur as transients within the Project Area, but there are no known
> nesting or roosting sites for these species in close proximity to the
> Project Area. In a memorandum dated October 16, 2002, the U.S. Fish
> and Wildlife Service concurred that the Proposed Action was \"not
> likely to adversely affect\" any listed species.

## Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, state, or local environmental protection law

> This action threatens no violation of federal, state, or local
> environmental protection laws.

###### Impairment

> In addition to reviewing the list of significance criteria, the
> National Park Service has determined that implementation of the
> proposal would not constitute an impairment to Capitol Reef National
> Park's resources and values. This conclusion is based on a thorough
> analysis of the environmental impacts described in the *Development of
> the Sleeping Rainbow Ranch as an Educational Facility: Environmental
> Assessment and General Management Plan Amendment*. The impacts were
> analyzed based on public comments received, relevant scientific
> studies, and the professional judgment of the decision-maker guided by
> the direction in NPS *Management Policies* (December 27, 2000).
> Although the project has some negative impacts, in all cases these
> adverse impacts are the result of actions taken to preserve, restore,
> or benefit other park resources and values. Overall, the plan results
> in benefits to park resources and values, and enhances opportunities
> for their enjoyment and understanding.

**PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT**

Use of the facility as an educational facility was initially analyzed
and accepted as the preferred alternative following public involvement
and comment in the Capitol Reef National Park Final General Management
Plan, Environmental Impact Statement and Development Concept Plan.
Subsequently, the public involvement process for this project involved
the following two public comment periods: initial project scoping and
comment solicitation between September 19, 2002, and October 19, 2002;
and the public comment period between February 4, 2004, and March 4,
2004, following public release of the EA dated January, 2004. Three
comments were received from the first public comment period, and six
comments were received after public release of the EA; these comments
were examined and substantive comments are addressed in the attached
errata sheet below. Substantive comments concerned the relationship of
the proposed action to the park's general management plan and the
economic effect the proposed action may have on the local community.

**CONCLUSION**

The proposal does not constitute an action that normally requires
preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). The proposal
will not have a significant effect on the human environment. Negative
environmental impacts that could occur are minor and temporary in
effect. There are no unmitigated adverse impacts on public health,
public safety, threatened or endangered species, sites or districts
listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places, or other unique characteristics of the region. No highly
uncertain or controversial impacts, unique or unknown risks, cumulative
effects, or elements of precedence were identified. Implementation of
the action would not violate any federal, state, or local environmental
protection law.

Based on the foregoing, it has been determined that an EIS is not
required for this project and thus will not be prepared.

Recommended:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Superintendent Date

Approved: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Intermountain Regional Director Date

**ERRATA**

#### Development of the Sleeping Rainbow Ranch as an Educational Facility: Environmental Assessment and General Management Plan Amendment

Page 2 of the environmental assessment states that:

"For the external scoping process, comments were accepted until October
11, 2002. No concerns or issues were raised and no other alternatives
were proposed in response to the public scoping brochure. The scoping
brochure presented the alternative of rehabilitating the structures, and
not the present proposal to raze them. However, since no comments were
received, and because all individuals, agencies, and tribes who received
the scoping brochure will be afforded the opportunity to review the
proposal described in this document, the NPS elected not to issue a new
scoping brochure."

Three comments were received during external scoping but were not
analyzed prior to the public release of the environmental assessment due
to a clerical error. Those comments were examined prior to the
preparation of this document.

**SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSE**

NPS policy (Director's Order-12: *Conservation Planning, Impact
Analysis, and Decision-Making*) requires the identification and analysis
of substantive comments prior to reaching a decision. As defined by the
Council on Environmental Quality regulations, substantive comments are
those which challenge accuracy of analysis, dispute information
accuracy, suggest different viable alternatives, or provide new
information that makes a change in the proposal. The topics, which are
addressed below, resulted in no changes to the text of the environmental
assessment. The NPS received a number of comments that were out of scope
or not substantive, and those are not addressed here. Several of the
comments received during public scoping were subsequently addressed in
the environmental assessment, and so are not addressed here.

**Comment**: amending the GMP and proceeding with removal of the
existing buildings represents gross changes from the original GMP

**Response:** Use of the facility as an educational facility was
analyzed and identified as the preferred alternative in the GMP. The EA
serves to identify the way in which the facility would be constructed
and operated. It is true that the proposal as identified in the GMP
would use existing buildings. Hence, the EA also serves to amend the GMP
because of the decision to eliminate the existing structures rather than
rehabilitate them. In razing the existing buildings and constructing new
ones, the Facility could have fewer impacts (*e.g*., on visual and
aesthetic resources), and would better fulfill the project purpose and
need for a low-impact, energy-efficient, research and education
facility. The NPS believes that constructing new buildings represents an
overall minor change to the project and would create a more efficient
and appropriate facility with fewer impacts to resources.

**Comment**: The NPS did not adequately consider the proposals effect on
the local socioeconomic environment

**Response**: The NPS considered the project in the broad context of the
park's overall impact on the local area. For example, in 2003 more than
600,000 individuals visited Capitol Reef National Park. As currently
proposed, operation of the Sleeping Rainbow Ranch would bring, at most,
an additional 5,200 visitors to the park each year, which would account
for less than one percent of the park's total visitation. Because the
park maintains its own law enforcement, fire, EMS, and search and rescue
staff, the NPS does not believe that these county services would be
significantly affected. The park does not maintain an ambulance service,
and so would continue to rely, in part, on Wayne County services for
emergency medical transportation. However, given the proportionally
small increase in numbers of individuals coming to the park due to this
project, a significant impact to this county service is not anticipated.
Further, most visitors to the ranch would be students enrolled in
supervised classes, so it is anticipated that there would be a lesser
likelihood that they would become injured and or lost while in the park
when compared to other visitors. Certainly some amenities would be
purchased locally, but the ranch would be largely self-contained, and
the NPS anticipates that the majority of purchases, *e.g.,* for food
services, would be made through contracts maintained by UVSC. It is
possible that some contracts could be awarded to local businesses.
During construction, some local contractors or builders could become
involved in portions of the project, and construction could result in an
influx of laborers that may use local businesses such as motels and
restaurants. Again, considered in relation to the impact of the park's
visitation and operation on the local area, and given the relatively
short timeframe during which construction would occur, the NPS does not
believe that this would result in a significant impact to the county's
overall socioeconomic climate.