Angeles Volunteer
Association
HOME | NEWS RELEASES | JOIN US
CURRENT ANNOUNCEMENTS AND NEWS RELEASES
SOURCE: Federal Register, May 18, 2004
UPDATE JUNE 2004 Ten
public meetings have now been scheduled for July. |
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Draft General Management Plan; Middle and South Forks Kings River Wild and Scenic River
Comprehensive Management Plan; North Fork Kern River Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive
Management Plan; Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks; Tulare and Fresno Counties, CA;
Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Proposed Plan and Alternatives: The draft
EIS/GMP/Comprehensive River Management Plan includes four action alternatives and a
no-action alternative which continues current management. The Comprehensive River
Management Plan and approved plans would be common to every alternative. The No-Action
Alternative (Continue Current Management): The parks are managed as they are now
in accordance with approved plans (such as development concept plans, and the 1996 Giant
Forest Interim Management Plan); negative resource impacts and visitor demands are
responded to by relocating development, reducing some uses, or confining new developed
areas. Visitor uses are reassessed and revised as new information about natural and
cultural resource impacts and visitor needs emerges. Current facilities are inadequate for
park needs and visitor use levels, and crowding is common in some areas. The Preferred
Alternative: The parks' appeal is broadened to be more relevant to diverse user
groups. Increased day use is accommodated, and overnight visitation is retained. The
integrity of park resources is paramount. Stronger educational and outreach programs
provide enjoyment and instill park conservation values. The basic character of park
activities and the rustic architecture of facilities are retained so that the parks remain
strikingly different from surrounding areas. Park administrative facilities are redesigned
and may be relocated outside the parks. Park facilities accommodate sustainable growth.
Stock use continues with appropriate management and monitoring. Alternative A: Emphasize
Natural Ecosystems and Biodiversity; Reduce Use and Development: The parks are natural
resource preserves; they are primarily valued because they contain publicly owned
resources that will be conserved for the future. Levels of use are lower than at present,
and visitor experiences are more directly connected to natural resources and provide more
solitude. The parks strongly contrast with surrounding lands that are under increasing
pressure for use and development. Park managers aggressively cooperate with the managers
of surrounding lands to enhance range-wide biodiversity. Alternative B:
Preserve Traditional Character and Retain the Feel of Yesteryear; Guide Growth: The parks
present a traditional park character and a feeling of yesteryear, where experiences are
more reminiscent of how visitors used the parks in the past. This is conveyed through
rustic architecture and lower impact recreational activities (such as sightseeing and
hiking) that were popular from the 1920s to the 1960s, and providing an experience that is
strikingly different from that in an urban setting. Redesigned developed areas accommodate
limited growth; overnight stays are encouraged. Negative impacts on natural resources are
controlled, so as to maintain or improve resource conditions. Alternative C:
Preserve Basic Character and Adapt to Changing User Groups; Guide Growth: The parks
preserve some of their traditional character and rustic architecture, but diverse new user
groups and uses are encouraged. Day use is more common. Facilities are expanded to meet
users' needs, while frequent interpretive programs are offered to educate, entertain, and
instill a sense of park conservation values. Negative impacts on natural resources are
controlled or mitigated, so as to maintain or improve resource conditions.
Public Review and Comment:
The draft EIS/GMP is now available for public review.
Requests for the document (by those not presently on the mailing list) should be addressed
to: GMP, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, 47050 Generals Hwy., Three Rivers, CA
93271-9651, by telephone at (559) 565-3101, or by e-mail at seki_superintendent@nps.gov. The document
may also be reviewed at park area libraries, or obtained electronically via the
``Management Docs'' link from the parks' Web site http://www.nps.gov/seki
or at the NPS planning Web site http://planning.den.nps.gov/,
selecting plans, and choosing ``What's New'' under the listing for Sequoia and Kings
Canyon National Parks. Printed copies and CDs will be sent to agencies and organizations
listed as recipients in the Consultation and Coordination section of the document.
Persons and organizations wishing to comment on the proposed General Management Plan must
do so by writing to: GMP team leader Susan Spain, NPS Denver Service Center, 12795 W
Alameda Parkway, Denver, CO 80225-0287 (or via e-mail to susan_spain@nps.gov); or GMP Coordinator David
Graber, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, 47050 Generals Highway, Three Rivers, CA
93271-9651 (or via e-mail to david_graber@nps.gov).
In addition, the parks will conduct public meetings to facilitate review and comment on
the draft EIS/GMP; these will be held during the comment period both in the parks, as well
as in the following locations: Three Rivers, Visalia, Fresno/Clovis, Sacramento, San
Francisco, Los Angeles and Bishop. Confirmed details on meeting locations, dates and times
will be posted on the parks' Web site; updates can also be obtained by telephone at (559)
565-3101.
RETURN TO:
News Releases
AVA Home Page